text:
# Lower bounds for the canonical height on elliptic curves over abelian extensions

## 1. Introduction

Let $`K`$ be a number field, and let $`K^{\mathrm{ab}}`$ denote the maximal abelian extension of $`K`$. Let $`E/K`$ be an elliptic curve, and let $`\widehat{h}:E(\overline{K})`$ be the usual canonical height function on $`E(\overline{K})`$.

Suppose that $`E`$ has complex multiplication by an order in the imaginary quadratic field $`k`$. If $`K`$ is any number field containing $`k`$, the theory of complex multiplication tells us that all of the torsion points of $`E(\overline{K})`$ (which are exactly the points with canonical height zero) are defined over the maximal abelian extension $`K^{\mathrm{ab}}`$ of $`K`$. By analogy with recent results of Amoroso–Dvornicich and Amoroso–Zannier for the multiplicative group (see Theorem 1.3 below), one might ask whether or not the canonical height function, when restricted to $`E(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$, takes arbitrarily small positive real values. The following theorem answers this question.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`K`$ be a number field, and let $`E/K`$ be an elliptic curve having complex multiplication. Then there exists an effectively computable real constant $`C>0`$ (depending on $`E/K`$) such that $`\widehat{h}(P)C`$ for all non-torsion points $`PE(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$.

###### Remark 1.2.

We will prove a somewhat more precise statement (Theorem 4.1) in Section 4.

Theorem 1.1 is analogous to the following result for heights on the multiplicative group $`𝐆_m`$, which (although not stated in precisely this form) is proved in  and :

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`h`$ denote the usual absolute logarithmic Weil height on $`\overline{}`$. Let $`K`$ be a number field, and let $`K^{\mathrm{ab}}`$ be the maximal abelian extension of $`K`$. Then there exists an effectively computable constant $`C>0`$ (depending only on $`K`$) such that if $`\alpha K^{\mathrm{ab}}`$ is not equal to zero or a root of unity, then $`h(\alpha )C`$.

Now suppose that $`E`$ does not have complex multiplication. As a complement to Theorem 1.1, we prove the following result:

###### Theorem 1.4.

Suppose $`K`$ is a number field and $`E`$ is an elliptic curve with non-integral $`j`$-invariant. Then there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`\widehat{h}(P)C`$ for all but finitely many points $`PE(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

The hypothesis that $`j_E`$ is non-integral implies that $`E`$ does not have complex multiplication. The elliptic curves not covered by either Theorem 1.1 or Theorem 1.4 are exactly those which have everywhere potential good reduction but do not have complex multiplication.

###### Remark 1.6.

Theorem 1.4 generalizes a result of Hindry-Silverman (Corollary 0.3 of ), which says that under the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4, there exist effectively computable constants $`C,D>0`$ such that any point $`PE(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(P)D`$ satisfies the inequality

$$\widehat{h}(P)\frac{C}{\mathrm{deg}(P)^{2/3}}.$$

Silverman also proved in  that if $`E/K`$ is an elliptic curve without complex multiplication (over $`\overline{K}`$), then there exists an effectively computable constant $`C>0`$ such that every non-torsion point $`PE(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{h}(P)\frac{C}{\mathrm{deg}(P)^2}.$$

###### Remark 1.7.

The proof of Theorem 1.4 does not provide an effective algorithm for computing the constant $`C`$ in the statement of the theorem.

We conclude this section by placing Theorems 1.1 and 1.4 in a more general context.

Let $`G`$ be a variety defined over a field $`K`$, and let $`L/K`$ be a field extension. Suppose that $`\widehat{h}:G(L)`$ is a function taking nonnegative values and that $`SG(L)`$. We say that the pair $`(S,\widehat{h})`$ (or the set $`S`$, when the function $`\widehat{h}`$ is understood) has the discreteness property if there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`\widehat{h}(P)C`$ whenever $`PS`$ and $`\widehat{h}(P)>0`$. We say that the pair $`(S,\widehat{h})`$ has the strong discreteness property if in fact we have

$$\underset{PS}{lim\; inf}\widehat{h}(P)>0,$$

i.e., if there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that $`\widehat{h}(P)C`$ for all but finitely many $`PS`$.

An example to keep in mind is the case where $`G=A`$ is an abelian variety defined over a number field $`K`$ and $`\widehat{h}:A(\overline{K})`$ is the canonical height function corresponding to some symmetric ample line bundle on $`A`$. It is well known (see \[11, Section 4\], for example) that whether or not $`(S,\widehat{h})`$ has the discreteness property (resp. the strong discreteness property) is independent of which canonical height function one chooses. Another example is where $`G=𝐆_m^n`$ and $`\widehat{h}:G(\overline{})`$ is the function given $`\widehat{h}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=h(x_1)+\mathrm{}+h(x_n)`$, where $`h:\overline{}`$ is the usual logarithmic Weil height.

Theorem 1.3 implies that $`𝐆_m^n(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ has the discreteness property for all number fields $`K`$. Theorem 1.1 can be rephrased as saying that if $`E/K`$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication, then $`E(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ has the discreteness property. Similarly, Theorem 1.4 says that if $`E/K`$ is an elliptic curve with non-integral $`j`$-invariant, then $`E(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ has the strong discreteness property.

We mention some known results related to Theorems 1.1 and 1.4. Concerning torsion points of abelian varieties defined over abelian extensions, J. Zarhin  (see also Ruppert ) has proved the following, using deep finiteness results of Faltings ():

###### Theorem 1.8.

Let $`A`$ be an abelian variety defined over a number field $`K`$. Then the torsion subgroup $`A_{\mathrm{tor}}(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ of $`A(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ is finite iff $`A`$ has no abelian subvariety with complex multiplication over $`K`$.

There is also the following result due to S. Zhang, which is a consequence (using Weil restriction of scalars) of the equidistribution theorems proved in  and :

###### Theorem 1.9 (Zhang).

Let $`K`$ be a number field, and let $`A/K`$ be an abelian variety. If $`LK`$ and $`L`$ is a finite extension of a totally real field, then $`A(L)`$ has the strong discreteness property.

Since the maximal cyclotomic extension $`K^{\mathrm{cycl}}:=K(\mu _{\mathrm{}})`$ is a finite extension of the totally real field $`(\mu _{\mathrm{}})^+`$, Zhang’s result implies in particular:

###### Corollary 1.10.

Let $`A/K`$ be an abelian variety. Then $`A(K^{\mathrm{cycl}})`$ has the strong discreteness property.

The weaker fact that the torsion subgroup $`A_{\mathrm{tor}}(K^{\mathrm{cycl}})`$ is finite is originally due to Ribet .

In light of the above-mentioned results, we propose the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 1.11.

Let $`K`$ be a number field, and let $`A/K`$ be an abelian variety. Then:

* $`A(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ has the discreteness property.
* If $`A`$ does not contain an abelian subvariety having complex multiplication over $`K`$, then $`A(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ has the strong discreteness property.

Note that Theorems 1.1 and 1.4 are special cases of part (1) of this conjecture. Together with Corollary 1.10, these results imply that Conjecture 1.11 is true when $`A=E`$ is an elliptic curve and any one of the following three hypotheses is satisfied:

* $`E`$ has complex multiplication
* $`j_E`$ is non-integral
* $`K=`$.

We note that if $`P_0A(K)`$ is a nontorsion point and $`P_nA(\overline{K})`$ satisfies $`2^nP_n=P_0`$, then $`\widehat{h}(P_n)=\frac{1}{4^n}\widehat{h}(P_0)0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. This is the simplest way to construct a sequence of nontorsion points in $`A(\overline{K})`$ whose heights tend toward zero. Conjecture 1.11 is therefore related to the principle that when $`n`$ is large, the points $`P_n`$ tend to be defined over highly non-abelian extensions of $`K`$.

To conclude this introduction, we pose the following question (which one could also ask in the context of semiabelian varieties):

Question: If $`A/K`$ is an abelian variety and $`L`$ is the extension of $`K`$ generated by all torsion points of $`A(\overline{K})`$, is it true that $`A(L)`$ has the discreteness property?

## 2. Background facts on canonical heights

If $`K`$ is a number field, we let $`M_K`$ denote the set of places (i.e., equivalence classes of absolute values) of $`K`$. We will denote the archimedean places by $`M_K^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the non-archimedean ones by $`M_K^0`$. If $`vM_K`$, we let $`||_v`$ be the unique absolute value in the equivalence class $`v`$ which extends the usual absolute value on $`_v`$. We also let $`n_v=[K_v:_v]`$ denote the local degree at $`v`$, and we let $`d_v=\frac{[K_v:_v]}{[K:]}`$ denote the local degree divided by the global degree.

We have:

###### Lemma 2.1.

If $`L`$ is a finite extension of the number field $`K`$ and $`v`$ is a fixed place of $`K`$, then

$$\underset{wM_L,wv}{}d_w=d_v.$$

Proof. Using the well-known fact that $`_{wv}[L_w:K_v]=[L:K]`$, we have

$$\underset{wv}{}\frac{[L_w:_w]}{[L:]}=\underset{wv}{}\frac{[L_w:K_v][K_v:_v]}{[L:]}=\frac{[K_v:_v]}{[K:]}$$

as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`E/K`$ be an elliptic curve. It is well known (see \[19, Chapter VI\] for definitions and further properties) that the canonical height function $`\widehat{h}:E(\overline{K})`$ has the following properties:

* $`\widehat{h}(nP)=n^2\widehat{h}(P)`$ for all $`PE(\overline{K})`$ and all integers $`n`$.
* $`\widehat{h}(P)0`$ for all $`PE(\overline{K})`$, and $`\widehat{h}(P)=0`$ if and only if $`P`$ is a torsion point.
* (Northcott’s theorem) Given any constant $`M>0`$ and a natural number $`d`$, the set of points $`PE(\overline{K})`$ such that $`\widehat{h}(P)M`$ and $`[K(P):K]d`$ is finite.
* (Parallelogram law) For all $`P,QE(\overline{K})`$,

$$\widehat{h}(P+Q)+\widehat{h}(PQ)=2\widehat{h}(P)+2\widehat{h}(Q).$$

The canonical height $`\widehat{h}`$ has a decomposition into Néron local height functions $`\lambda _v`$, one for each $`vM_K`$. More precisely, for all $`PE(K),P0`$ we have

$$\widehat{h}(P)=\underset{vM_K}{}n_v\lambda _v(P),$$

where $`\lambda _v:E(K_v)\{0\}`$ is defined and normalized as in \[19, Chapter VI\]. Note that in general, the Néron local height functions can take negative values, although if $`v`$ is a place of good reduction for $`E`$, then $`\lambda _v(P)`$ is always nonnegative. In fact, suppose $`E`$ has good reduction at $`v`$ and that $``$ is a minimal Weierstrass model over the ring of integers $`R_v`$ in the completion $`K_v`$. Then if $`v`$ corresponds to the prime ideal $`𝔭=(\pi )`$ of $`R_v`$ and $`PE(K_v)\{0\}`$, we have

$$\lambda _v(P)=\mathrm{log}|\pi |_v^{m(P)},$$

where $`m(P)`$ is the largest integer $`m0`$ such that $`P0`$ (mod $`\pi ^m`$).

The Néron local heights behave functorially with respect to finite extensions of $`K`$: if $`L/K`$ is a finite extension and $`PE(K)`$, then

$$\lambda _v(P)=\underset{w|v}{}\frac{[L_w:K_v]}{[L:K]}\lambda _w(P).$$

In particular, for each $`vM_K`$, $`\lambda _v`$ extends to a Néron local height function $`\lambda _v:E(\overline{K_v})\{0\}`$.

In order to prove Theorems 1.1 and Theorem 1.4, we will need known lower bounds for certain average values of Néron local height functions. We consider the archimedean case first.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`E/`$ be an elliptic curve with $`j`$-invariant $`j_E`$, and let $`\lambda :E()\{0\}`$ denote the associated Néron local height function. Let $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_N`$ be distinct points of $`E()`$. Then

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda (P_iP_j)0.$$

More explicitly, we have

$$\underset{ij}{}\lambda (P_iP_j)\frac{1}{12}N\mathrm{log}N\frac{1}{12}N\mathrm{log}^+|j_E|\frac{11}{3}.$$

Proof. This follows from a result of Elkies which is proved in a slightly different form in \[8, Theorem VI.5.1\]. The necessary modifications to get the form quoted here are discussed in \[7, Lemma 3\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is clear from the definition of $`\lambda `$ that there exists a real constant $`C_1`$ such that $`\lambda (P)C_1`$ for all $`PE()\{0\}`$. Taking $`N=2`$ in the above lemma, we obtain the following explicit admissible value for $`C_1`$:

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`E/`$, $`\lambda `$ be as above. Then if $`PE()\{0\}`$, we have

$$\lambda (P)C_1,$$

where $`C_1=\frac{1}{6}(C_2+\mathrm{log}^+|j_E|)`$ and $`C_2`$ is a universal constant which can be taken to be $`\mathrm{log}2+\frac{22}{3}`$.

We now turn to the special case where $`v`$ is a non-archimedean place of $`K`$ at which $`E`$ has split multiplicative reduction, so that in particular the $`j`$-invariant of $`E`$ is non-integral at $`v`$. Let $`\nu =\mathrm{ord}_v(j_E^1)>0`$, and note also for future reference that $`\mathrm{log}|j_E|_v>0`$.

Let $``$ be the Néron model of $`E`$ over the ring of integers of $`K_v`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ be its special fiber. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the group of connected components of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ and we fix an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}\frac{(1/\nu )}{}$$

(see \[19, Corollary IV.9.2\]).

Let $`\lambda _v:E(K_v)\{0\}`$ be the Néron local height function at $`v`$. Tate’s explicit formula for $`\lambda _v`$ implies that if $`r_v`$ denotes the natural reduction homomorphism

$$r_v:E(K_v)\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{}{}\frac{(1/\nu )}{},$$

then

$$\lambda _v(P)\frac{1}{2}𝐁_2(r_v(P))\mathrm{log}|j_E|_v$$

for all nonzero points $`PE(K_v)`$. Here $`𝐁_2(t)`$ is the periodic second Bernoulli polynomial $`\{t\}^2\{t\}+\frac{1}{6}`$. Note in particular that if $`PE(K_v)\{0\}`$ reduces to the identity component of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ then

$$\lambda _v(P)\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_v>0.$$

Using this description and a Fourier averaging technique, one can prove the following analogue of Lemma 2.2 (see \[6, Proposition 1.2\]):

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`v`$ be a finite place of $`K`$ such that $`j_E`$ is non-integral at $`v`$, and let $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_NE(K_v)`$ be distinct points. Let $`\nu =\mathrm{ord}_v(j_E^1)`$. Then

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _v(P_iP_j)0.$$

More explicitly, we have

$$\underset{ij}{}\lambda _v(P_iP_j)\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_v\left((\frac{N}{\nu })^2N\right).$$

## 3. Preliminary Lemmas

In this section, we prove some lemmas which will be needed for the proof of Theorem 1.1. The first lemma is well-known, and concerns the formal group of an abelian variety with ordinary reduction. For lack of a suitable reference, we sketch a proof.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`R`$ be a strictly henselian discrete valuation ring with fraction field $`K`$ of characteristic zero and residue field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$. Let $`A/K`$ be an abelian variety with good ordinary reduction, and let $`𝒜/R`$ be its Néron model. Let $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ be the formal group (i.e., the formal completion along the identity section) of $`𝒜`$. Then $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ is isomorphic over $`R`$ to $`(\widehat{𝐆}_m)^g`$, where $`g=dimA`$ and $`\widehat{𝐆}_m`$ is the formal group of $`𝐆_m`$.

Proof. (Sketch) Let $`G/R`$ be the $`p`$-divisible group of $`𝒜`$, so that by the Serre-Tate correspondence, the formal group $`\widehat{𝒜}`$ is the connected component $`G^0`$ of $`G`$. Since $`A`$ has good ordinary reduction and $`k`$ is separably closed, $`G`$ contains a constant étale $`p`$-divisible group isomorphic to $`(_p/_p)^g`$.

On the other hand, let $`G^{}`$ be the $`p`$-divisible group of the dual abelian variety $`A^{}`$. Then $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$ are canonically Cartier dual to one another (see ). Additionally, $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ are isogenous over $`\overline{K}`$, so that $`A^{}`$ also has good ordinary reduction. Therefore $`G^{}`$ contains a copy of $`(_p/_p)^g`$, and by Cartier duality, it follows that $`G`$ contains a split multiplicative $`p`$-divisible group isomorphic to $`(𝐆_m)^g`$.

It follows by dimension considerations that $`G(_p/_p)^g\times (𝐆_m)^g`$ and therefore $`\widehat{𝒜}(\widehat{𝐆}_m)^g`$ as desired.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Our proof of Theorem 1.1 will follow the same basic outline as the proof of \[1, Theorem 1\], replacing the map $`xx^p`$ on $`𝐆_m`$ for a suitable prime number $`p`$ by a canonical lift of Frobenius on $`E`$. So we now recall some facts concerning canonical lifts.

As in the introduction, let $`K`$ be a number field with ring of integers $`R`$, and let $`E/K`$ be an elliptic curve with complex multiplication by an order $`R^{}`$ in the imaginary quadratic field $`k`$. Let $`v`$ be a non-archimedean place of $`K`$, corresponding to a prime ideal $`𝔭`$ of $`R`$ of residue characteristic $`p>2`$, and let $`K_v`$ (resp. $`R_v`$) denote the $`v`$-adic completion of $`K`$ (resp. $`R`$). Throughout this section, we make the additional assumptions that $`E`$ has good ordinary reduction at $`v`$ and that $`p`$ does not divide the conductor of $`R^{}`$. Our hypotheses on $`p`$ ensure that there exists a canonical lift $`F\mathrm{End}_{\overline{K}}(E)`$ of the Frobenius endomorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ (see e.g. Chapter 13, Theorems 12–14 of ). The endomorphism $`F`$ is an isogeny of degree $`p`$, and by replacing $`K`$ by a finite extension if necessary, we can and will assume that $`F`$ is defined over $`K`$. Also, the universal property of the Néron model (see \[3, 1.1\]) ensures that $`F`$ extends to an endomorphism $`F:`$.

Let $`:y^2=f(x)`$ be a minimal Weierstrass model for $`E/R_v`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ be the special fiber of $``$. We denote by $`\widehat{}`$ the formal group of $``$.

Concerning the canonical lifting of Frobenius, we have the following lemma:

###### Lemma 3.2.

With notation and hypotheses as above (so that, in particular, $`E/K`$ is an elliptic curve with complex multiplication and good ordinary reduction at $`v`$), let $`I`$ be the inertia subgroup of $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}_v/K_v)`$. Then $`E[F^n]\mu _{p^n}`$ as $`I`$-modules for all integers $`n1`$.

Proof. We claim that $`[F^n]=[p^n]^0`$ as finite flat group schemes over $`R`$ for all $`n1`$. One way to see this is as follows. By a theorem of Deligne (see \[21, pp. 144-145\]), $`[F^n]`$ is killed by its order $`p^n`$. But since $`[F^n]`$ is connected, it is a closed subscheme of $`[p^n]^0`$. Since $`E`$ is ordinary, a consideration of degrees forces the equality $`[F^n]=[p^n]^0`$, proving the claim.

By the Serre-Tate correspondence, the formal group of $``$ is the connected component of the $`p`$-divisible group of $``$. It follows that $`[F^n]=[p^n]^0=\widehat{}[p^n]`$, and the result now follows from Lemma 3.1. $`\mathrm{}`$

We also note for future reference the fact that for all $`PE(\overline{K})`$, $`\widehat{h}(FP)=p\widehat{h}(P)`$. This follows from the more general fact that for all nonzero $`\psi \mathrm{End}(E)`$, we have $`\widehat{h}(\psi (P))=\mathrm{deg}(\psi )\widehat{h}(P)`$ for all $`PE(\overline{K})`$ (see e.g. \[15, Exercise 3.6.3\]).

As a first step toward proving Theorem 1.1, we consider the special case where $`L/K`$ is an abelian extension which is unramified above $`v`$. In this case, let $`\sigma \mathrm{Gal}(L/K)`$ be the Frobenius element at $`v`$. (This is well-defined since $`L/K`$ is abelian.)

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`L/K`$ be an abelian extension, unramified above $`v`$, and suppose $`PE(L)`$ is not a torsion point. Then $`FP\sigma P`$, and

$$\lambda _w(FP\sigma P)\mathrm{log}p$$

for all places $`w`$ of $`L`$ dividing $`v`$.

Proof. Suppose $`FP=\sigma P`$. Then by induction, we have $`F^kP=\sigma ^kP`$ for all $`k1`$. If $`M`$ denotes the order of $`\sigma `$ in $`\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)`$, then we have $`(F^M1)P=0`$. But $`F^M1`$ is an isogeny, which contradicts the fact that $`P`$ is not a torsion point.

For the second part of the lemma, we note that for $`QE(L),Q0`$, we have $`\lambda _w(Q)>0`$ if and only if $`Q`$ is in the kernel of reduction mod $`w`$. Also, since $`L_w/K_v`$ is unramified, the inequality $`\lambda _w(Q)>0`$ implies that $`\lambda _w(Q)\mathrm{log}p`$. The lemma follows from this last observation, since $`FP\sigma P`$ is in the kernel of reduction mod $`w`$ by the definition of $`F`$ and $`\sigma `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.4.

Conversely, if $`PE(L)`$ is a torsion point then $`FP=\sigma P`$. So Lemma 3.3 gives a useful criterion for distinguishing non-torsion points from torsion points.

We now consider the special case of Theorem 1.1 in which $`K_v=_p`$ and $`L_w=_p(\zeta _m)`$ for some positive integer $`m`$ divisible by $`p`$. Let $`\tau \mathrm{Gal}(L/K)`$ be a generator of $`\mathrm{Gal}(_p(\zeta _m)/_p(\zeta _{m/p}))`$, which can be identified with a subgroup of the inertia group $`I`$ of $`\mathrm{Gal}(L_w/K_v)`$.

The following elementary observation is similar to \[1, Lemma 2(1)\]:

###### Lemma 3.5.

With $`\tau ,m`$ as above, we have $`\tau (\alpha )^p\alpha ^pmodp`$ for all $`\alpha _p[\zeta _m]`$.

Proof. Write $`\alpha =h(\zeta _m)`$ for some polynomial $`h_p[x]`$. Then

$$\alpha ^ph(\zeta _m^p)h(\tau \zeta _m^p)\tau \alpha ^pmodp.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

The next lemma will allow us to prove Theorem 1.1 via induction on the ramification of $`L/K`$. It is modeled after Lemma 2(2) of .

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`m=p^km^{}`$ be an integer with $`(m^{},p)=1`$, let $`L/K`$ be a finite abelian extension, and let $`w`$ be a place of $`L`$ lying over the place $`v`$ of $`K`$. Assume that $`L_w_p(\zeta _m)`$, $`K_v_p`$, and that $`\tau `$ is a generator of $`\mathrm{Gal}(_p(\zeta _m)/_p(\zeta _{m/p}))`$. Assume furthermore that $`LK(E[F^k])`$. Suppose $`PE(L)`$ is a non-torsion point, and let $`P^{}=F\tau PFP`$.

* If $`P^{}0`$, then $`\lambda _w(P^{})\mathrm{log}p.`$
* If $`P^{}=0`$, then there exists a torsion point $`TE[F^k]`$ such that $`P+T`$ is fixed by $`\tau `$.

Proof. For the first statement, we view $`P`$ as a point of $`E(_p(\zeta _m))`$. Let $`_p^{\mathrm{nr}}`$ denote the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $`_p`$, and let $`I`$ be the inertia group of $`L_w/_p`$. According to Lemma 2 of , the reduction map gives an isomorphism

$$E[m](_p^{\mathrm{nr}})\stackrel{~}{E}[m](\overline{𝐅}_p).$$

It follows that there exists a torsion point $`SE[m](_p^{\mathrm{nr}})`$ such that $`PS`$ is not in the kernel of reduction. Since $`\tau `$ fixes torsion points unramified at $`v`$ and $`F`$ is defined over $`K`$, we have

$$(\tau FF)P=(\tau FF)(PS),$$

and therefore we may assume without loss of generality for the first part of the lemma that $`P`$ is not in the kernel of reduction. Therefore we may write $`P=(x,y)`$ with $`x,y_p[\zeta _m]`$.

Since $`\tau `$ is in the inertia group $`I`$, it follows that $`FP`$ and $`\tau FP`$ are congruent modulo the maximal ideal $``$ of $`_p[\zeta _m]`$. We claim that they are in fact congruent mod $`^e=(p)`$, which will establish part (1) of the lemma.

To see this, simply note that in terms of Weierstrass coordinates, we have $`\tau FP(\tau x^p,\tau y^p)`$ and $`FP(x^p,y^p)`$ (mod $`p`$). The claim therefore follows from Lemma 3.5.

For the second part of the lemma, suppose that $`F\tau P=FP`$. Then $`\tau PPE[F]`$, which is a cyclic group of order $`p`$, so we have $`\tau PP=T^{}`$, where $`T^{}`$ is a torsion point of order dividing $`p`$. If $`T^{}=0`$ then we can take $`T=0`$ in the statement of the lemma, so without loss of generality, we can suppose that $`T^{}`$ has order $`p`$.

By Lemma 3.2, for each $`n1`$ we have $`E[F^n]\mu _{p^n}`$ as $`I`$-modules. If we fix a torsion point $`UE[F^k]\backslash E[F^{k1}]`$, then it follows that $`T^{\prime \prime }:=\tau UU`$ has order $`p`$, so that $`T^{}=rT^{\prime \prime }`$ for some integer $`0<r<p`$. Define $`T:=rU`$. Then

$$\tau (P+T)(P+T)=(\tau PP)r(\tau UU)=T^{}rT^{\prime \prime }=0,$$

as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.7.

The second part of the lemma can be interpreted in terms of Galois cohomology. Let $`G^{}`$ be the cyclic group $`\mathrm{Gal}(_p(\zeta _m)/_p(\zeta _{m/p}))`$. Since $`E[F^k]\mu _{p^k}`$, the fact that for every $`T^{}E[F]`$ there exists $`TE[F^k]`$ such that $`T^{}=\tau TT`$ is equivalent to the fact that the Galois cohomology group $`H^1(G^{},\mu _m)`$ is killed by $`m/p`$.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.1

It is clear that in the proof of Theorem 1.1 we may replace $`K`$ by a finite extension, so we assume from now on that $`K`$ contains the field $`k`$ of complex multiplication. Also, without loss of generality we may assume that $`E`$ has everywhere good reduction over $`K`$ (see \[19, Theorem II.6.1\]). This implies (see \[19, Remark VI.4.1.1\]) that for every finite extension $`L/K`$ and every non-archimedean place $`w`$ of $`L`$, we have $`\lambda _w(Q)0`$ for all nonzero points $`QE(L)`$.

Let $`D=[K:]`$. We choose once and for all (using the Cebotarev density theorem) a non-archimedean place $`v_0`$ of $`K`$ of residue characteristic $`p`$ satisfying the following conditions:

* $`E`$ has good reduction at $`v_0`$
* $`p`$ splits completely in $`K`$
* $`p>\mathrm{exp}(DC_1)`$, where $`C_1`$ is the constant appearing in the statement of Corollary 2.3. (Equivalently, this inequality says that $`A_p:=(\mathrm{log}p)/DC_1>0`$.)

Note that since $`kK`$, hypothesis (2) automatically implies that $`E`$ has ordinary reduction at $`v_0`$.

We will prove the following more explicit version of Theorem 1.1:

###### Theorem 4.1.

With $`K`$ and $`p`$ as above, let $`E/K`$ be an elliptic curve having complex multiplication. Let $`C_1`$ be the constant from Corollary 2.3. Let $`L/K`$ be an abelian extension, and let $`PE(L)`$ be a non-torsion point. If we set $`A_p=(\mathrm{log}p)/DC_1>0`$, then

$$\widehat{h}(P)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{A_p}{2(p+1)}\hfill & \mathrm{if}L/K\mathrm{is}\mathrm{unramified}\mathrm{above}v_0\hfill \\ \frac{A_p}{4p}\hfill & \mathrm{if}L/K\mathrm{is}\mathrm{ramified}\mathrm{above}v_0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. We may assume without loss of generality that the extension $`L/K`$ is finite. The proof proceeds by induction on the power of $`p`$ dividing the local conductor at $`v_0`$ of $`L/K`$.

More concretely, fix a place $`w`$ of $`L`$ lying over $`v_0`$, and let $`m`$ be the smallest positive integer such that $`L_w_p(\zeta _m)`$. Such an $`m`$ exists by the local Kronecker–Weber theorem, since $`K_{v_0}_p`$. If we write $`m=p^rm^{}`$, with $`(p,m^{})=1`$, then we define the local conductor $`𝔣(L)=𝔣_{v_0}(L/K)`$ to be $`p^r`$. This coincides with the definition of the conductor from local class field theory. As the notation suggests, $`𝔣_{v_0}(L/K)`$ is independent of the chosen place $`wv_0`$.

Let $`PE(L)`$ be a non-torsion point. If $`𝔣(L)=1`$ (i.e., $`L/K`$ is unramified above $`v_0`$), then by Lemma 3.3 (letting $`\sigma `$ be the Frobenius element of $`L/K`$ above $`v_0`$) we have

$$\lambda _w(\sigma PFP)\mathrm{log}p$$

for all places $`w`$ of $`L`$ with $`w|v_0`$.

It follows that

$$\underset{w|p}{}d_w\lambda _w(\sigma PFP)\underset{w|v_0}{}d_w\mathrm{log}p=d_{v_0}\mathrm{log}p=\frac{\mathrm{log}p}{D}.$$

As noted above, for every nonarchimedean place $`wM_L^0`$ and every nonzero point $`QE(L)`$ we have

$$d_w\lambda _w(Q)0.$$

By Corollary 2.3, we also know that for every archimedean place $`wM_L^{\mathrm{}}`$ we have

$$\lambda _w(Q)C_1.$$

Applying these inequalities to $`Q=\sigma PFP`$, and using the decomposition

$$\widehat{h}(Q)=\underset{vM_{}}{}\underset{w|v}{}d_w\lambda _w(Q)$$

of the global canonical height as a sum of Néron local heights, we find that

$$\widehat{h}(\sigma PFP)\frac{\mathrm{log}p}{D}C_1=A_p>0.$$

Applying the parallelogram law

$$\widehat{h}(P_1P_2)=2\widehat{h}(P_1)+2\widehat{h}(P_2)\widehat{h}(P_1+P_2)$$

and noting that $`\widehat{h}(P_1+P_2)0`$, $`\widehat{h}(\sigma P)=\widehat{h}(P)`$, and $`\widehat{h}(FP)=p\widehat{h}(P)`$, we conclude that

$$\widehat{h}(P)\frac{A_p}{2(p+1)}.$$

This establishes the base case $`𝔣(L)=1`$ of the induction.

Assume now that $`𝔣(L)p`$ (so that $`L/K`$ is ramified above $`v_0`$), and that the theorem is true for all abelian extensions $`L^{}`$ of $`K`$ such that $`𝔣(L^{})<𝔣(L)`$.

As the local conductor of $`L(\zeta _m)`$ over $`K`$ is still $`𝔣=p^k`$, we may assume without loss of generality that $`L`$ contains the $`m`$th roots of unity, so that for all places $`w`$ of $`L`$ lying over $`v_0`$ we have $`L_w_p(\zeta _m)`$.

By Lemma 3.2, all points in $`E[F^k]`$ are defined over $`_p(\zeta _{p^k})_p(\zeta _m)=L_w`$. They are also defined over an abelian extension of $`K`$. Without loss of generality, we may therefore also assume that $`K(E[F^k])L`$.

Let $`\tau \mathrm{Gal}(L/K)`$ be as in Lemma 3.6, and let $`P^{}=\tau FPFP`$. If $`P^{}0`$, then by part (1) of Lemma 3.6 we have

$$\lambda _w(P^{})\mathrm{log}p$$

for all places $`w`$ of $`L`$ with $`w|v_0`$.

An argument parallel to that in the case $`𝔣(L)=1`$ now shows that

$$\widehat{h}(P)\frac{A_p}{4p}.$$

Finally, if $`P^{}=0`$, then part (2) of Lemma 3.6 tells us that there exists a torsion point $`TE[F^k]E(L)`$ such that $`P+T`$ is defined over the fixed field $`L^{}`$ of $`\tau `$. Note that $`L_w^{}=_p(\zeta _{m/p})`$, and therefore $`𝔣(L^{})<𝔣(L)`$. Since $`\widehat{h}(P)=\widehat{h}(P+T)`$, we can apply the inductive hypothesis to $`P+T`$ to conclude. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5. Proof of Theorem 1.4

Suppose $`E/K`$ is an elliptic curve whose $`j`$-invariant is non-integral at the finite place $`v_0`$ of $`K`$. Without loss of generality, we may replace $`K`$ by a finite extension and we henceforth assume that $`E/K`$ is semistable, with split multiplicative reduction at $`v_0`$. Let $`\nu _0=\mathrm{ord}_{v_0}(j_E^1)`$.

Suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that $`\{P_i\}`$ is an infinite sequence of points in $`E(K^{\mathrm{ab}})`$ such that $`\widehat{h}(P_i)0`$. Let $`L_i`$ be the Galois closure of $`K(P_i)/K`$, which by assumption is an abelian extension of $`K`$. Let $`e_i`$ be the ramification index above $`v_0`$ of $`L_i/K`$.

We consider two cases.

Case 1: The sequence $`e_i`$ is bounded above.

For notational convenience in the sequel, let $`e`$ be an upper bound for the integers $`e_i`$, and define $`c:=\frac{1}{e^2\nu _0^2}>0`$. Pick any point $`Q`$ from the sequence $`\{P_i\}`$, let $`L`$ be the Galois closure of $`K(Q)/K`$, and let $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N`$ be the Galois conjugates of $`Q`$ over $`K`$. Note that Northcott’s theorem implies that we can choose $`Q`$ so that $`N`$ is as large as we please.

By repeatedly applying the parallelogram law

$$\widehat{h}(Q_i+Q_j)+\widehat{h}(Q_iQ_j)=2\widehat{h}(Q_i)+2\widehat{h}(Q_j)$$

and noting that $`\widehat{h}(Q_i)=\widehat{h}(Q_j)=\widehat{h}(Q)`$ and $`\widehat{h}(Q_i+Q_j)0`$ for all $`i,j`$, we obtain (following ) the inequality

(1)
$$\widehat{h}(Q)\frac{1}{4N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\widehat{h}(Q_iQ_j).$$

In order to make use of this observation, we need to estimate the contribution at places lying over $`v_0`$ to the local decomposition of the global canonical height as a sum of Néron local heights.

To do this, let $`w`$ be any place of $`L`$ lying over $`v_0`$. Then $`\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w>0`$ and $`\nu :=\mathrm{ord}_w(j_E^1)=e(w/v_0)\nu _0e\nu _0`$. By Lemma 2.4, we have, for each integer $`N2`$, the inequalities

(2)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{ij}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\hfill & \hfill & \frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w\left(\left(\frac{N}{\nu }\right)^2N\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & \frac{c}{12}N^2\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w\frac{N}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w,\hfill \end{array}$$

and therefore

(3)
$$\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\frac{c}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w\frac{1}{12(N1)}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w.$$

We have been working at the specific place $`v_0`$, but by the same reasoning, we see that for any place $`w`$ of $`L`$ where $`E`$ has bad (and therefore split multiplicative) reduction we have

(4)
$$\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\frac{1}{12(N1)}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w.$$

For any place $`w`$ where $`E`$ has good reduction, we have

(5)
$$\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)0.$$

Finally, for any infinite place $`w`$ of $`L`$ we have, by Lemma 2.2,

(6)
$$\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\frac{1}{12(N1)}\mathrm{log}^+|j_E|_w+o(1),$$

where $`o(1)`$ denotes a term which tends to 0 as $`N`$ tends to infinity.

Combining inequalities (2) through (6), and using the decomposition of the global height as a sum of local heights, we obtain, using Lemma 2.1:

(7)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{N(N1)}_{ij}\widehat{h}(Q_iQ_j)\hfill & =\hfill & _{wM_L}d_w\frac{1}{N(N1)}\left(_{ij}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\right)\hfill \\ & & \frac{c}{12}_{wv_0}d_w\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w\frac{1}{12(N1)}_{wM_L}d_w\mathrm{log}^+|j_E|_w\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{c}{12}d_{v_0}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_{v_0}\frac{1}{12(N1)}h(j_E)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{c}{12}d_{v_0}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_{v_0}+o(1).\hfill \end{array}$$

Combining this with inequality (1), we find that there are positive real constants $`c^{}=d_{v_0}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_{v_0}/48`$ and $`c^{\prime \prime }=cc^{}`$ depending only on $`E,K,v_0`$, and $`e`$ such that

(8)
$$\widehat{h}(Q)c^{\prime \prime }+o(1).$$

Since $`d_i\mathrm{}`$, $`Q`$ can be chosen so that $`N`$ is as large as we like. However, for $`N`$ sufficiently large, the inequality (8) contradicts the fact that $`h(P_i)0`$. We therefore conclude that Case 1 cannot occur.

Case 2: $`e_i\mathrm{}`$.

As before, we pick an element $`QE(L)`$ from the sequence $`\{P_i\}`$. Let $`L`$ be the Galois closure of $`K(Q)/K`$; since $`L/K`$ is abelian, the inertia groups of $`L/K`$ at each place lying over $`v_0`$ are all the same group $`I`$.

Let $`Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_N`$ be the conjugates of $`Q`$ under $`I`$. Note that the hypothesis $`e_i\mathrm{}`$ guarantees that we can choose $`Q`$ so that $`N`$ is as large as we like.

Since the $`Q_i`$’s are conjugate under the inertia group $`I`$, we see that for every place $`w`$ of $`L`$ dividing $`v_0`$, $`Q_iQ_j`$ is in the kernel of reduction mod $`w`$ for all $`i,j`$. It follows that for all $`ij`$ we have

$$\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w$$

and therefore

$$\frac{1}{N(N1)}\underset{ij}{}\lambda _w(Q_iQ_j)\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w$$

for all $`wv_0`$.

Using the parallelogram law and Lemma 2.1 as before, we find that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{h}(Q)\hfill & \hfill & \frac{1}{4}_{w|v_0}d_w(\frac{1}{12}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_w)+o(1)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \frac{1}{48}d_{v_0}\mathrm{log}|j_E|_{v_0}+o(1)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & c^{}+o(1),\hfill \end{array}$$

which for $`N`$ large contradicts the fact that $`\widehat{h}(P_i)0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Brian Conrad for helpful discussions and Robert Rumely for his useful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Finite temperature gauge physics differs significantly from its non-thermal counterpart. The geometrical features related to the presence of $`S^1`$-compactified Euclidean time considerably complicate the zero-temperature picture. Already for abelian effective actions (Dirac determinants) generated by integrating out charged fermions in D=3, a number of unexpected phenomena emerge  through the interplay between “large” gauge invariance requirements and the topological properties of non-simply connected spacetimes. Through careful regularization, it was possible to deal with the usual array of “global” properties, such as spectral asymmetries (characteristic of odd dimension), parity anomalies, preservation of large gauge invariance and the role of (generalized) Chern–Simons (CS) terms. In the process, we were able to exhibit very general “Fourier” representations of these $`U(1)`$ actions such that the large gauge transformations (LGT) arising at finite temperature were properly expressed with respect to the corresponding, non-perturbative, Ward identities. In turn, this led to gauge-invariant expansions of the effective actions useful for both large and small fermion masses, where the anomalies and ambiguities could also be analyzed.

The object of the present work is the natural but non-trivial extension of the above analysis to nonabelian theories, for various – simply connected or not – internal symmetry groups such as $`SU(2)`$ and $`SO(3)`$. The basic issue remains that of large gauge invariance, but with the added nonabelian gauge complication. It is known that (as in the abelian case) massive fermions in a background nonabelian gauge field at $`T0`$ induce, at one-loop level, a CS term whose coupling parameter is continuous in temperature . Therefore, at generic $`T`$, this parameter cannot have the discrete value required for invariance under LGT. On the other hand we could expect , from the abelian analysis, that at finite temperature an infinite number of terms is induced in the effective action in such a way that large gauge invariance is restored, even though it would not be manifest at any finite perturbative order. The above statement can be easily proved by studying the relevant Dirac determinant using $`\zeta `$-function regularization, a manifestly gauge-invariant method providing a well-defined geometrical tool for discussing global properties. While the spacetime aspects of the Dirac determinants (now augmented by the color index entries) in this formalism are very similar to the abelian case, so the various series expansions presented in  carry over formally unchanged, this procedure unfortunately gives insight neither into the mechanism through which the perturbative series organizes itself nor into the nonperturbative information, such as holonomies, indices and fluxes, needed to explain the global invariance. Indeed, we shall see that significant non-perturbative changes arise precisely for configurations that involve a novel index.

The feasibility of an explicit description of the large gauge invariance properties in the abelian case is related to the peculiar structure of the $`U(1)`$ gauge group. Abelian gauge transformations with non-trivial winding number exist only at finite temperature, where the CS action jumps discontinuously by a non-vanishing boundary term when magnetic flux is present on the underlying two-dimensional manifold. Conversely, it was possible to show that the only degree of freedom of the gauge field transforming significantly under LGT was the flat connection wrapping around $`S^1`$. Large gauge invariance is precisely the statement that the effective action must be periodic in the flat connection, implying in this way an additional finite Ward identity. Moreover, this critical, topological, degree of freedom affects the parity violating (PV) of the action only when accompanied by magnetic flux on the corresponding two-dimensional manifold. In the abelian case, therefore, the non-trivial effects of LGT are unavoidably linked to the simultaneous presence of a magnetic flux and of a flat connection.111The above picture, developed in , is itself a natural extension of one in zero space dimension , the important new feature being the magnetic flux. Our general considerations were illustrated by explicit integration in presence of some specific, physically non-trivial, field configurations222Our computations were mainly performed with vanishing electric field $`𝑬`$ purely in order to permit analytical results, since $`𝑬`$ plays no role in preserving large gauge invariance: Indeed, later constructions with $`𝑬0`$ using improved derivative expansions  or partially resummed perturbation theory  confirmed our conclusions.  (see also ). While the topological complications of abelian theory arose in a very specific and “rigid” way, disappearing in the (topologically trivial) limit of zero temperature, nonabelian LGT and some of their consequences persist at $`T=0`$, as illustrated by the well-known quantization  of the tree-level CS coefficient. At one loop and zero temperature, the non-trivial topological part of the PV action is entirely governed by a gauge invariant functional of the field, usually denoted as $`\eta (0)`$, that is neither local nor continuous. It can be explicitly computed with the help of the Atiyah-Patodi-Singer theorem  and consists of two parts: a continuous local functional given by the CS action plus a nonlocal, discontinuous, contribution given by a topological index. Large gauge invariance is maintained through a cancellation between the two. While, for massless fermions, this is the only PV-contribution, for massive fermions, new (but harmless) structures can be generated: their form in the limit of small and large mass is discussed in . A direct zero-temperature perturbative computation of the PV effective action produces a properly normalized CS term that respects large gauge invariance in the familiar sense: the quantized nature of the CS coefficient is preserved.

For massive fermions, when the temperature is turned on, however, the very same expansions start, discontinuously, to generate $`T`$-dependent CS coefficients exactly as in the abelian case, requiring a combined, thermal + gauge, description. In the easiest case, when the gauge group is, like $`SU(N)`$, simply connected, the basic topological properties are unaltered; at the same time the presence of a non-trivial $`S^1`$ and the explicit form of the perturbative results suggests that the zero-mode of the time component $`A_0`$ will again play a special role. To be more precise, the (untraced) Wilson-Polyakov loop (WPL) around Euclidean time is the important new ingredient, just as it was in the abelian case. Unfortunately, in the nonabelian case, flat connections do not behave simply under LGT and it is not immediately obvious what kind of fluxes could be coupled there, since as we will review (in the $`SU(N)`$ case) the bundle structure is trivial. At the same time, the explicit example of , the perturbative computations of  and the derivative expansions of  suggest that, at least for vanishing $`𝑬`$, the effective actions bear a strong resemblance to the abelian ones, requiring also a field endowed with an apparent magnetic flux. We will start our analysis by examining to what extent the thermal abelian mechanism can be embedded in the more complicated nonabelian setting. In the process, we will encounter a new (in this context) topological index, associated with the obstruction to diagonalizing WPL globally, and playing the role of a generalized magnetic flux333This index has already appeared in $`QCD_4`$ in the discussion of the abelian projection and of the related ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopoles . It was, in fact, used to give a topological gauge invariant characterization of this family of solutions. In three dimensions, its role has been also discussed by .. Moreover, we shall find that a class of LGT can be studied explicitly, for specific field configurations, within a particular gauge fixing; the new topological index is also pivotal to this analysis. Although our embedding is completely general, only in the case of vanishing $`𝑬`$ does it provide an exhaustive account of the gauge invariance problem: for generic field configurations, it must be accompanied by other mechanisms to deal with the non-flat part of $`A_0`$, i.e. the electric sector. We believe, however, that the LGT properties of the magnetic sector are always controlled in the above manner.

Our paper is arranged as follows: in Sec. 2, we set out some basic facts about the topology of internal gauge groups, mappings into spaces of the form $`S^1\times `$ compact Riemann surfaces of arbitrary genus, the structure of the CS term and its finite temperature transformation properties. In particular, we try to extend our earlier, purely 3-dimensional, abelian analysis of the CS coefficient’s quantization at finite $`T`$ to the nonabelian $`SU(N)/_N`$ without going through a 4-dimensional embedding argument . We show how, for these non-simply connected groups, the zero-temperature condition given by the third homotopy group may be modified due to the presence of a non-trivial first homotopy group. In the process, we present and motivate an explicit, simple, smooth and periodic LGT on $`S^1\times S^2`$, followed later by one on $`S^1\times T^2T^3`$. In Sec. 3, we turn our attention to WPL, whose analysis was equally central in the abelian case, because it carries the global gauge invariant information. We note that, while this gauge invariant information is of course contained in its eigenvalues, diagonalizing WPL is, in general, not a smooth operation: this quantity, viewed as a map from the base manifold into the gauge group, might not be not globally diagonalizable. Using the formalism of , we associate an index to this topological obstruction and show (by going to a suitable, “diagonal”, gauge) that magnetic fluxes appear along the Cartan directions, despite the vanishing of the original bundle’s first Chern class. In Sec. 4, we explicitly construct the static temporal gauge $`\dot{A}_0=0`$ in order to analyze the structure of the potentials. We discover a class of LGT preserving this gauge condition when the WPL has a non-trivial index, and transforming the WPL holonomy exactly as for the $`U(1)`$. Using the above ingredients in Sec. 5, we treat configurations with (for simplicity) vanishing electric field along the lines of , the role of magnetic flux being played here by an array of gauge-invariant magnetic projections related to the above index. A final section summarizes our results and outlines some open problems.

## 2 LGT and Topological Charges

### 2.1 D=3 bundles

Let us first review some basic facts about Euclidean thermal gauge fields on 3-spaces of the form $`=S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ a compact Riemann surface of genus $`g`$. The circle $`S^1`$, parameterized by the Euclidean time, $`T`$, has circumference $`\beta =1/\kappa T`$.

In the following, we shall focus on principal $`G`$-bundles having $``$ as basis and $`G`$ as structure group; their topological classification is more involved than for $`T`$=0. There, one usually compactifies Euclidean three-space on $`S^3`$, the three-sphere. Now principal $`G`$-bundles over $`S^3`$ are classified by $`\pi _2(G)`$ , the second homotopy group of $`G`$; however $`\pi _2(G)=0`$ for any Lie group and hence, in the usual $`S^3`$ picture, the bundle associated with the gauge fields is automatically trivial. The situation changes for more general three-manifolds $``$, since $`G`$-bundles are now classified by elements of the cohomology group $`H^2(,\pi _1(G))`$ . We see that non-trivial topological charges could arise when non-simply connected groups are taken into account; the commonly considered $`SU(N)`$ case is, instead, still trivial, since $`\pi _1(SU(N))=0`$. If $`G=U(N)`$ then $`\pi _1(G)=`$ and the bundle is classified by an element of $`H^2(,)`$, which may be identified with the first Chern class. At finite temperatures, where $`=S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ is the relevant base manifold, we find

$$H^2(S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g,)=^{2g+1},$$
(2.1)
upon using the explicit form of the first Betti number of $``$, $`b_1()=2g+1`$, and the absence of torsion . This clearly generalizes the situation of $`N=1`$ and $`g=0`$ (the 2-sphere), by allowing for (several) magnetic fluxes. \[Gauge groups other than $`SU(N)`$ may also effectively arise in simple situations, for example when adjoint fermions are coupled to $`SU(N)`$ gauge fields.\] Another interesting case is $`G=SO(N)`$; then $`\pi _1(G)=_2`$ and the bundle is classified using $`H^2(,_2)`$, which may be identified with the second Stiefel-Whitney class. Using Poincaré duality and some basic properties of homology theory (see for example ), one can compute

$$H^2(S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g,_2)=_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2g+1}.$$
(2.2)
A third simple example is given by taking $`G=SU(N)/_N`$: in this case one can show along the same lines that

$$H^2(S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g,_N)=_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{2g+1}.$$
(2.3)
The above classifications are interesting because they exhaust the possible topological sectors of finite temperature D=3, providing the analogue of the instanton charges for the gauge groups considered. They will help us understand the permissible values of the CS coefficient and the transformation properties of the CS action itself. At finite temperature, one must specify the boundary conditions on $`S^1`$: the gauge connections can always be chosen periodic,

$$A_\mu (t+\beta ,𝒙)=A_\mu (t,𝒙).$$
(2.4)
Fermions can be taken to be antiperiodic,

$$\psi (t+\beta ,𝒙)=\psi (t,𝒙)$$
(2.5)
if they are in the fundamental representation, or antiperiodic up to a global $`_n`$ transformation (i.e., up to an element of the center), if in the adjoint representation. Therefore the effective gauge group is $`SU(N)/_N`$, which allows non-trivial topological sectors.

### 2.2 LGT on non-simply connected manifolds and groups

We have seen that the presence of a non-trivial $`\pi _1()`$ can change topological structure; the natural problem now is to understand how LGT are changed when the base manifold (and possibly the gauge group) is not simply-connected. For general $``$ and $`G`$, under the simplifying assumption of dealing with trivial bundles444For a non-trivial bundle $`E`$ the classification of LGT is equivalent to that of Map$`{}_{G}{}^{}(E,Ad(G))`$ (see ). Fortunately, we do not need to study this more complicated question., LGT are classified by the set of the homotopy classes \[$`,G`$\] of continuous maps from $``$ into $`G`$. In the zero-temperature case, when $``$ is $`S^3`$ we simply have \[$`,G`$\]=$`\pi _3(G)`$, leading to the usual classification in terms of integer winding numbers . For $`SU(N)`$, we know that $`\pi _3(SU(N))=`$. The general case is more involved: the homotopy classes \[$`,G`$\] are labelled by two topological winding numbers $`(W_1,W_2)`$. The primary, $`W_1`$, and the secondary, $`W_2`$, are elements of the following cohomology groups,

$$W_1H^1(,\pi _1(G)),W_2H^3(,\pi _3(G)).$$
(2.6)
These topological charges are the obstructions to deforming a generic map $`U`$ into a constant one. While this finer classification is not really essential for $`SU(N)`$, whose $`\pi _1`$ vanishes, the primary winding number does become relevant for non-simply connected groups like $`U(N)`$ or $`SO(N)`$. Moreover, for any compact and orientable $``$ it can be shown  that

$$H^3(,)=,$$
(2.7)
so the structure of LGT for $`SU(N)`$ is basically unchanged at finite temperature.

We next display the promised LGT example in $`S^1\times S^2`$, and (for simplicity) $`SU(2)`$:

$`U_n(t,\theta ,\varphi )`$ $``$ $`u(t)\widehat{U}_n(t,\theta ,\varphi )\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }}t\sigma _3\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }}t𝝎_n𝝈\right)`$ (2.8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }}t\sigma _3\right)\left[\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }}t\right)II+i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\beta }}t\right)𝝎_n𝝈\right].`$
In terms of the two-sphere angles $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$, the components of the unit 3-vector $`𝝎_n`$ are $`\omega _n^1(\theta ,\varphi )=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}(n\varphi )`$, $`\omega _n^2(\theta ,\varphi )=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}(n\varphi )`$ and $`\omega _n^3(\theta ,\varphi )=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. A similar transformation555Any other large transformation $`\overline{U}_n`$ will differ from (2.8) by a small one. One recent example is that of , which was obtained from the usual $`T=0`$ form , $`\overline{U}_n^L(T=0)=\mathrm{exp}[n\pi i𝒚𝝈/\sqrt{𝒚^2+\lambda ^2}]`$, by compactifying time through the mapping $`t\tau \mathrm{tan}\frac{\pi t}{2\beta }`$. Here $`𝒚(t,𝒙)`$ and $`\lambda `$ is an arbitrary constant cutoff. However, as noted in , the price of this mapping is that (in contrast with (2.8)) the resulting $`\overline{U}_n^L`$ is not analytic. was obtained, in a different context, in ; there it was noted that $`\widehat{U}_n`$ alone was antiperiodic, but that it could be made periodic simply by composing it with the “small” antiperiodic $`u(t)`$ that (being angle-independent) cannot alter the winding in $`\widehat{U}_n`$. This $`\widehat{U}_n`$ is just a square root of the well-known periodic ansatz later introduced independently in , which is why it produces all windings, but at the price of antiperiodicity. \[The original, periodic, ansatz covered only even windings.\] A simple computation confirms that the contribution from $`u(t)`$ to the winding integrand is a total divergence whose integral vanishes on the sphere. We notice that for $`n=0`$ the representative is not the identity but a particular, non-trivial, small gauge transformation. It is possible to generalize the above construction to $`SU(N)`$ by embedding the $`SU(2)`$ example into $`SU(N)`$: the antiperiodicity of $`\widehat{U}`$ is repliced by “periodicity” up to an element of the center $`_N`$ and $`u(t)`$ by a similar small transformation. In Sec. 3 we will present an example with different topology, the torus $`T^3`$.

Returning to the classification problem, let us first contrast the above treatment of $`SU(N)`$ with that of $`U(1)`$: For the latter, only $`W_1`$ is relevant ($`\pi _1(U(1))=`$), because its $`\pi _3`$ vanishes. \[At finite temperature, abelian LGT therefore appear, whose effects on the quantization of the CS coupling constant and on the definition of the CS action have already been mentioned.\] Here we simply write the result for generic $``$, easily derivable from :

$$H^1(,)=()^{2g+1}.$$
(2.9)
The gauge groups $`U(N>1)`$ and $`SO(N>3)`$, instead, experience the combined effect of both winding numbers:

$$[,U(N)]=W_1W_2=()^{2g+1},[,SO(N)]=W_1W_2=(_2)^{2g+1}.$$
(2.10)
The case of $`SO(3)`$ is special: not all possible primary and secondary winding numbers separately label LGT, but only those having a particular relation. In  it was shown that $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ must satisfy $`(W_1)^3=W_2\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ as a relation in $`H^3(,_2)`$: For $`=S^1\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$, it is not difficult to prove that the above condition can be satisfied trivially since $`(W_1)^3=0`$ and one gets

$$[,SO(3)]=(_2)^{2g+1}2,$$
(2.11)
where the second term on the r.h.s. simply realizes the condition $`W_2\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}=0`$: only even secondary winding numbers appear in the classification of LGT for $`SO(3)`$.

### 2.3 Quantization of CS coefficient on non simply-connected groups and manifolds

While the systematic analysis of D=3 LGT  was originally motivated by studying the vacuum structure of four-dimensional gauge theories, their relevance to $`D`$=3 physics was realized by analysis of CS theory , which we review briefly. When defined on a trivial $`G`$-bundle over $``$, the CS action has the form

$$S=2\pi kI_{CS}=\frac{k}{4\pi }_{}d^3xϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}\left[A_\alpha _\mu A_\nu \frac{2i}{3}A_\alpha A_\mu A_\nu \right].$$
(2.12)
The behavior of CS under gauge transformation,

$$A_\mu ^U=U^1A_\mu U+iU^1_\mu U,$$
(2.13)
is given by

$$I_{CS}[A^U]=I_{CS}[A]+𝒲[U]\frac{i}{8\pi ^2}d^3xϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }_\alpha \mathrm{Tr}[A_\mu U^1_\nu U],$$
(2.14)
with

$$𝒲[U]=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}_{}d^3xϵ^{\alpha \mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}\left[U^1_\alpha UU^1_\mu UU^1_\nu U\right].$$
(2.15)
Since the bundle structure is trivial, the total derivative term can be neglected (our manifolds having no boundary); for $`SU(N)`$, $`𝒲[U]=W_2[U]`$ measures the secondary winding number or topological degree of $`U`$. This in turn leads to the integer quantization condition on the coupling constant $`k`$, since the phase, $`S`$, is the relevant physical object at quantum level. Of course when $`\pi _1(G)0`$, the situation may change because the primary winding number can also enter for non-trivial $`G`$-bundles. In particular, the CS term itself is not well-defined when the bundle is non-trivial: the $`A_\mu `$ in (2.12) are not globally defined as one-forms on $``$ and the action is patch-dependent by virtue of (2.14). \[Here the total derivative contributions must also be taken into account.\] The simplest, but physically relevant, realization of this possibility was actually in finite temperature abelian theory , where the non-trivial bundle structure forced an analogous quantization requirement. The total derivative term in (2.14) contributes when LGT (necessarily of primary type) are performed in presence of topological charges (the analog of instantons). As a result, we noted that, for the CS action to be well-defined, a doubling of the naive quantization condition was required. A general approach to the problem was proposed in  by defining the CS action as

$$S=\frac{k}{4\pi }_{}d^4xϵ^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}\left[F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(2.16)
where $``$ is some 4-manifold (or more generally 4-complex) whose boundary is $``$ and the $`G`$-bundle has been extended over $``$. Now it is the $``$-independence of $`S`$ that forces $`k`$ to be an integer, but demanding that the $`G`$-bundle be extendable poses further restrictions on $`k`$. We argue here that these restrictions, consistent with our quantization rule in the abelian case, can also be understood as coming from LGT within the purely three-dimensional approach, at least for $`=S^1\times S^2`$. To show this, consider $`SU(N)/_N`$: we have shown above that non-trivial bundles can be present, while existence of LGT can also be easily inferred, since now the $`SU(N)`$ gauge functions need be periodic only up to a $`_N`$ transformation. A particularly explicit realization can be offered for $`SO(3)`$, equivalent to $`SU(2)/_2`$, using the adjoint representation of $`SU(2)`$, with generators $`(\tau _a)_{bc}=iϵ_{abc}`$. LGT on $``$ are labeled by $`_22`$ and are explicitly realized by

$`U_{0,2n}(t,\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta }}t\tau _3\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta }}t𝝎_n\tau \right)`$
$`U_{1,2n}(t,\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{\beta }}t𝝎_n\tau \right).`$ (2.17)
We must remark that the $`U(1)`$ factor in the first of these two classes of transformations is actually a large transformation by itself: it cannot be contracted continuously to unity; only its square can. Its primary winding number is, indeed, $`1`$. Since the second factor also has primary winding number $`1`$, their product possesses a vanishing $`W_1`$. Recall that $`W_1`$ takes values in $`_2`$.

Therefore, the non-trivial $`_2`$ classes are related to a non-trivial loop around $`S^1`$, similar to the LGT of $`U(1)`$: at $`n=0`$ it is more convenient to use a simpler representative of the non-trivial class, depending only on $`t`$

$$𝒰_1(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{2\pi }{\beta }t\tau _3\right).$$
(2.18)
In the following we will work (for general $`N`$) in the fundamental representation, realizing the quotient at the level of gauge functions, periodic up to the particular element of $`Z_N`$ that is identified with the primary winding number. The basic transformation is

$$𝒰_1(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{2\pi }{N\beta }tH\right),$$
(2.19)
where $`H`$ is the diagonal, traceless, $`N\times N`$ matrix with entries $`(1,1,..,1,1N)`$; the elements of the other classes are obtained by taking all powers up to $`N`$–1. We have now constructed the representatives for primary windings number (at genus zero the classes are in correspondence with $`_N`$). Next we construct the non-trivial $`SU(N)/_N`$ bundles on $`S^1\times S^2`$: as in the $`U(1)`$ case; one can think of them as coming from monopole-like configurations on the sphere. Non-trivial connections on $`S^2`$ are characterized by a non-trivial $`_N`$ holonomy around, say, the north pole: a simple way to obtain this is to fix the transition functions, labelled by the various elements of $`_N`$, and taken at $`\theta =\pi /2`$ for definiteness, to be

$$G_m(\varphi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{2\pi m}{N\beta }\varphi H),m=0,1..N1.$$
(2.20)
We promote $`G_m`$ to be the transition function of the full $`SU(N)/_N`$-principal bundle over $`S^1\times S^2`$ ($`m`$ being the number associated to the different bundle structures, according to eq.(2.3)). From the three-dimensional point of view $`G_m`$ is now seen to be the transition function at the intersection of two patches covering $``$, having toroidal topology (we have implicitly assumed that our transition functions could be chosen time-independent). To construct the CS action in this non-trivial case, we can resort to a patch by patch definition:

$$I_{CS}(A)=I_{CS}^{X_1}(A_1)+I_{CS}^{X_2}(A_2),$$
(2.21)
where $`X_1,X_2`$ are two solid tori with oppositely oriented boundaries $`T^2`$, $`A_1,A_2`$ being the expressions for the gauge connections (now globally defined on $`X_1,X_2`$) with boundary values related by the transition function $`G_m`$. As in the abelian case, the definition (2.21) must be augmented by a term depending explicitly on the transition function, in order to be independent of the particular local trivialization of the bundle (see  for the cohomological meaning of these terms). Our proposed generalization of (2.21) is

$`I_{CS}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`I_{CS}^{X_1}(A_1)+I_{CS}^{X_2}(A_2)+\widehat{𝒲}[G]`$ (2.22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{T^2}}d^2xϵ^{ij}\mathrm{Tr}[G_iG^1A_{1j}],`$
where $`\widehat{W}[G]`$ is the WZWN action associated to $`G`$. The origin of (2.22) can be understood by recalling eq. (2.14). It can be checked that for trivial bundles it coincides with the CS action, when written in term of globally defined connections, and that it reproduces the abelian result. The definition of the WZWN action implies that the CS coupling parameter $`k`$ must be even for $`N`$ even, and an arbitrary integer for $`N`$ odd, according to the general analysis for $`SU(N)/_N`$ presented in . Gauge invariance further restricts $`k`$: let us compute the gauge variation of (2.22) under $`(𝒰_1)^s𝒰_s`$ ($`s=1,2..N1`$), the LGT with non-vanishing primary winding number, represented as in (2.19). Since $`𝒰_s`$ commute with the transition function $`G_m`$, they are globally defined automorphisms of the bundle. We obtain

$$\delta I_{CS}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}_{T^2}d^2xϵ^{ij}\mathrm{Tr}[G_m_iG_m^1(𝒰_s^1_j𝒰_s𝒰_s_j𝒰_s^1)].$$
(2.23)
Using the explicit form of $`H`$, this variation reduces to

$$\delta I_{CS}=ms\frac{N1}{N}.$$
(2.24)
From the extreme case, $`m=s=1`$, we learn that $`k`$ must be a multiple of $`N`$ in order for the quantum phase to be well-defined. In  the same problem was examined, following the four-dimensional route and using algebraic geometrical techniques; our more down-to-earth approach can reproduce that result for $`N`$ odd, but for $`N`$ even we apparently miss a factor 2 (the quantization rule appearing in  is $`k=2N`$ for $`N`$ even). One possible explanation may be that an extra factor $`1/2`$ is needed in the normalization of the CS term for $`N`$ even: it is well-known  that WZWN theory needs this extra factor in its definition, when quotiented by $`_N`$ for $`N`$ even. If the CS action experienced the same change we would find full agreement with ; in any case, the general $`N`$-dependence displayed by our approach indicates that a purely three-dimensional definition is indeed possible.

## 3 Fluxes and their Characterizations

### 3.1 General Framework

For finite $`T`$, understanding how the invariance of the effective action under LGT is explicitly realized can be difficult. In the abelian case, we singled out the flat connection (effectively WPL) wrapping around $`S^1`$ as the carrier of this information, leading to the basic requirement that the effective action be periodic, i.e., have “Fourier” form in WPL. A major role in that analysis was also played by fields with non-vanishing Chern class. \[In fact, most of the examples in the abelian literature exploit this property to generate a candidate CS term in the effective action.\] For $`SU(N)`$, the interplay between periodic time, LGT, and fluxes appears to be weakened: unlike in the abelian case, LGT survive in the zero-temperature limit and there are no bundles with non-vanishing first Chern class. Therefore the generic nonabelian picture cannot simply mimic the abelian one – some new mechanism must be introduced. Nevertheless, in the following, we show that there is a vast class of nonabelian fields with features common to those of the abelian analysis and for which one can define apparently abelian, but fully gauge invariant, fluxes.

As stated, the additional abelian information carried by the flat connection is encoded in the WPL about $`S^1`$. It is natural to expect that the same quantity will also describe some topological properties of the effective action, such as its behavior under LGT. Here, as we shall see, the WPL is related to a new topological number, whose role is very similar to that of magnetic flux. To illustrate this unexpected connection, we must first introduce some results about maps from a two-manifold into $`SU(N)`$. In fact, from the mathematical point of view, the (untraced) WPL defined by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,𝒙)=P\mathrm{exp}\left(i_0^\beta 𝑑t^{}A_0(t^{},𝒙)\right)\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(3.1)
is a map from the space manifold, say $`S^2`$, into $`SU(N)`$. Despite the fact that the $`\pi _2`$ of $`SU(N)`$ vanishes, we can associate to the applications from $`S^2`$ into the group an integer-valued topological index  that measures the obstruction to diagonalization of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by globally defined transformations. This integer will play the role of a generalized magnetic flux. \[This is not a novel idea: it was indeed widely exploited in $`D=4`$ to study the invariant meaning of magnetic monopoles and magnetic defects in the gauge where $`A_0`$ is time-independent and diagonal  and in particular to discuss the fate of LGT in the Hamiltonian approach  to $`QCD_4`$.\]

Following , we shall review the invariant characterization of the gauge connections for which this index does not vanish.666The relevance of this class of fields in $`D=3`$ physics was already underlined in , where these configurations were shown to be crucial to the path integral solution of CS theory and to the derivation of the Verlinde formula. We confine our analysis to regular WPL, which are dense in the space of all possible maps. An element $`g`$ in a group $`G`$ is regular if the set of elements commuting with $`g`$ has dimension of the maximal torus $`T^m`$ of $`G`$. \[In $`SU(N)`$, this statement is equivalent to saying that the eigenvalues of $`g`$ are non-degenerate.\] Our problem may then be formulated as follows: Can a given smooth regular map $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ be written as

$$g=h^1sh$$
(3.2)
where $`s:\mathrm{\Sigma }T^m`$ and $`h:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$ are smooth and globally defined maps? The answer to this question cannot be always affirmative, as the following classic example shows. Consider the $`SU(2)`$ element

$$gi\widehat{𝒓}𝝈,\widehat{𝒓}^2=1.$$
(3.3)
Since $`\widehat{𝒓}^2=1`$ is also a sphere, we can regard $`g`$ as an application between two $`S^2`$, the second one being the equator of $`SU(2)`$. To any such application $`g`$, we can associate a topological winding number given by

$$n(g)=\frac{1}{32\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}(g[dg,dg]).$$
(3.4)
Clearly $`n(g)`$ vanishes identically if $`g`$ can be diagonalized smoothly. On the other hand, $`n(g)`$ is equal to 1 for (3.20), as a simple calculation in polar coordinates shows; thus we must conclude that the above $`g`$ cannot be smoothly diagonalized. However, when we consider $`g`$ as a matrix-valued field defined on a bundle, conjugation to the maximal torus, i.e., its diagonalization, acquires the meaning of performing a gauge transformation. Limiting the admissible gauge transformations just to the globally defined ones is too restrictive; the natural geometrical requirement is (as for the gauge connections) rather that they be definable chart by chart, respecting the cocycle conditions on the overlaps of different charts.777From the mathematical point of view we want to exploit the possibility of representing a given fiber bundle through any of the coordinate bundles belonging to its equivalence class. We call this – by a physicist’s abuse of language – a gauge transformation, even though in mathematics that name is restricted to the vertical automorphism of the bundle. In the following, we will diagonalize $`g`$ in this wider arena, finding the new index in the process.

First, we must understand how to keep track of the information encoded in $`n(g)0`$ if we allow non-smooth transformations. To this end, observe that the index $`n`$ can be made invariant also under non-globally defined transformations if there is a gauge connection on $`S^2`$; this can be achieved by introducing an arbitrary one to enlarge the space of allowed transformations sufficiently. But our physical framework already possesses a natural candidate – the spatial gauge potential $`𝑨`$. Then, according to general theory, we can write

$$n(g,A)=\frac{1}{32\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}g[d_Ag,d_Ag]\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}[gF_A],$$
(3.5)
with $`d_Ag=dg+[𝑨,g]`$ and $`F_A=d𝑨+\frac{1}{2}[𝑨,𝑨]`$ is the associated magnetic field. The invariance under non-smooth transformation is manifest, since no integration by part is required to prove that (3.5) is gauge invariant. Rewriting it as

$$n(g,𝑨)=\frac{1}{32\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}g[dg,dg]\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}[d(g𝑨)]$$
(3.6)
shows that it is equivalent to (3.4) when $`g`$ and $`𝑨`$ are smooth, since the second integral in (3.23) vanishes.

Let us now perform the $`SU(2)`$ transformation that diagonalizes $`g=h^1\sigma _3h`$; then

$$n(g,𝑨)=1=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left[\sigma _3d(𝑨^{h^1})\right].$$
(3.7)
In particular, if we introduce the abelian gauge connection $`𝒂\mathrm{Tr}\sigma _3𝑨^{h^1}`$ we obtain

$$n(g,𝑨)=1=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{S^2}𝑑𝒂;$$
(3.8)
$`𝒂`$ can indeed be interpreted as a $`U(1)`$ connection, since its transition functions are abelian. The first Chern class of the component of $`𝑨^{h^1}`$ along the Cartan subalgebra (here $`\sigma _3`$ ), is equal to the winding number of the original map. Geometrically, we have picked up a non-trivial torus bundle; physically, a non-vanishing magnetic flux, related to the diagonal components of the field, appears. We have thus associated to a $`SU(2)`$ connection a topological number that plays a dual role: in regular gauges it measures the obstruction to diagonalizing WPL, while in singular ones its presence results in the appearance of a magnetic flux. We have also learned how to move from one picture to its dual. The above discussion naturally extends to any map $`g`$ from a two-dimensional manifold into the $`SU(2)`$ group. The generalization to $`SU(N)`$ does involve some subtleties; following , we therefore briefly summarize the fundamental steps. Given the WPL, patchwise we can always write

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=h_\alpha ^1sh_\alpha $$
(3.9)
where $`s`$ is a diagonal matrix and $`h_\alpha `$ is map from the patch $`U_\alpha `$ into $`SU(N)`$. In each patch, we can also introduce another matrix $`g_\alpha `$,

$$g_\alpha =h_\alpha ^1\mu h_\alpha $$
(3.10)
where $`\mu `$ is a regular element in the Lie algebra of the maximal torus, an integer linear combination of the diagonal generators of $`SU(N)`$. One can show that $`g`$ is globally defined and thus drop the index $`\alpha `$; since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is assumed to be regular and since our $`g`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the obstruction to diagonalizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is also carried by $`g`$. Choose $`\mu `$ to be one of the roots $`\alpha ^k`$ of $`SU(N)`$. Then we can express $`N1`$ integer-valued indices $`n^k`$ describing the aforementioned obstruction in terms of $`g`$,

$$n^k(g,𝑨)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}g[D(𝑨,g),D(𝑨,g)]\frac{1}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}gF_A,$$
(3.11)
where $`D(𝑨,g)=𝑨h^1dh`$. One might wonder why we introduced $`g`$, rather than working directly with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Briefly, global diagonalizability of a matrix is a property of the reference frame defined by its eigenvectors; since we consider regular maps, the explicit form of its eigenvalues is irrelevant and only their non-degeneracy matters. Therefore introducing $`g`$ is a simple tool for extracting only the relevant information. This also explain why we were able to give invariant meaning to the magnetic flux that emerged upon diagonalization: we have singled out a set of intrinsic vectors in the color space that transform covariantly under gauge transformations, and used them to bleach the color index, thus providing a (pseudo-)abelian framework.888If we try to diagonalize $`g`$, and consequently $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, it is not difficult to argue that, even in this more general $`SU(N)`$ case, the components of the connection along the Cartan subalgebra become non-trivial in the sense that they can acquire non-vanishing “$`U(1)`$” Chern classes – one for each diagonal generator of $`SU(N)`$. For a more detailed discussion of this construction, see .

The appearance of the new topological index and of the associated abelian fluxes is an intriguing new feature, whose presence could affect the Dirac determinant effective action, especially its parity violating part. We have in mind analogous effects due to magnetic fields in $`QED_3`$ or to instantons in $`QCD_4`$. To quantify its repercussions, however, would require difficult calculations we have not attempted.

### 3.2 Examples

We now proceed to illustrate the above general mechanism with two explicit examples, $`S^1\times S^2`$ and $`S^1\times T^2T^3`$. Consider first the following $`SU(2)`$ connection on $`=S^1\times S^2`$,

$$A_0(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{2\pi \gamma }{\beta }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{in\varphi }\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta e^{in\varphi }& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),𝑨=0;$$
(3.12)
it is globally defined when the angles ($`\theta `$,$`\varphi `$) span the unit sphere. Note that there is no magnetic flux through the sphere since the spatial components $`𝑨`$ vanish.999We also remark that the constant $`\gamma `$ cannot be an integer, since then WPL becomes the identity, obviously not a regular map (it commutes with any element of $`SU(2)`$). Physically, $`\gamma `$ plays the role of a flat connection and integer-valued $`\gamma `$ allow $`A_0`$ to be completely gauged away. We also mention that making $`\gamma `$ angle-dependent does not alter the results below. Nothing essential would change either had we chosen $`𝑨=𝑨(t,𝒙)`$ instead of $`𝑨=0`$. In fact, if $`𝑨(t,𝒙)`$ is a globally defined connection on the sphere, its overall effect on the abelian gauge field $`(a_\theta ,a_\varphi )`$ below is to add a topologically trivial fluctuation, given by $`Tr(A_0𝑨)`$, that would not alter the value of the Chern class. What happens if we try to diagonalize the WPL, $`\mathrm{exp}(i\beta A_0)`$, associated with the above (time-independent) $`A_0`$? The diagonalizing transformation

$$U_n(\theta ,\varphi )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& e^{in\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{in\varphi }& \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right)$$
(3.13)
is not globally defined on the sphere: for example, $`\varphi `$-dependence clearly remains at the south pole, $`\theta =\pi `$. Hence this gauge transformation is defined only in the north pole chart of the sphere and another one, regular in the south pole chart, must be constructed in order to achieve consistent diagonalization. For the moment, let us work only around the north pole; it will be clear how to extend the final result to the south pole region. Performing (3.13) on (3.12) yields $`A_0=2\pi \gamma \sigma _3/\beta `$, but also introduces space components:

$$A_\theta ^U=\frac{i}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& e^{in\varphi }\\ e^{in\varphi }& 0\end{array}\right),A_\varphi ^U=\frac{n}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)& e^{in\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ e^{in\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta & 2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta /2)\end{array}\right).$$
(3.14)
We can now construct the apparently abelian field that keeps track of the hidden original obstruction to diagonalizing $`A_0`$, namely

$$a_\theta \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _3A_\theta ^U)=0;a_\varphi \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}(\sigma _3A_\varphi ^U)=n\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}=\frac{n}{2}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(3.15)
We immediately recognize the usual monopole on the two-sphere, or more precisely, its usual expression in the north pole chart. The corresponding field strength is proportional to the volume form of the sphere and therefore carries a non-vanishing Chern class with value $`n`$. Analysis of a gauge transformation regular about the south pole yields the expression for the same monopole in that chart. As expected from general theory, the gauge transformation connecting the two expression belongs to the maximal torus: it is proportional to $`\sigma _3`$. For completeness, we write the gauge invariant form of this index in terms of the above fields. If we call $`g=U_n\sigma _3U_n^1/2=\beta \mathrm{\Omega }/4\pi \gamma `$, then in any gauge, the index is

$$n=\frac{1}{32\pi }_{S^2}\mathrm{Tr}(g[d_Ag,d_Ag]),$$
(3.16)
which is the same as (3.5) upon dropping the magnetic field term, since $`B`$ vanishes in all gauges. Note incidentally that, being gauge invariant, (3.16) could appear in the effective action for such backgrounds.

It is instructive to consider an example defined on a different 2-surface, the 2-torus $`T^2`$, so that now $`=S^1\times T^2T^3`$. The spatial torus $`T^2`$ is parametrized by two flat periodic coordinates $`x_1x_1+1`$ and $`x_2x_2+1`$. We start by considering a transformation $`V(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`SU(2)`$ periodic up to an element $`\omega _i`$ of the maximal torus; in particular we choose

$`V(x_1+1,x_2)=\omega _1V(x_1,x_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{2\pi ix_2}& 0\\ 0& e^{2\pi ix_2}\end{array}\right)V(x_1,x_2)`$ (3.17)
$`V(x_1,x_2+1)=\omega _2V(x_1,x_2)=V(x_1,x_2),`$ (3.18)
where the explicit form of $`\omega _i`$ is the trivial embedding in $`SU(2)`$ of the transition functions of the $`U(1)`$-instanton with unit charge on $`T^2`$. We can now construct a globally defined (i.e., periodic) WPL as follows

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(x_1,x_2)`$ $`=`$ $`V^1(x_1,x_2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (x_1,x_2))& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi (x_1,x_2))\end{array}\right)V(x_1,x_2)=`$ (3.19)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}|\alpha |^2e^{i\varphi }+\beta ^2e^{i\varphi }& 2i\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }\mathrm{sin}\varphi \\ 2i\alpha \beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi & e^{i\varphi }\beta ^2+\alpha ^2e^{i\varphi }\end{array}\right),`$
in terms of the parametrization

$$V(x_1,x_2)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha (x_1,x_2)& \overline{\beta }(x_1,x_2)\\ \beta (x_1,x_2)& \overline{\alpha }(x_1,x_2)\end{array}\right),|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1.$$
(3.20)
The eigenvalues $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm i\varphi )`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are taken to be periodic. The periodicity, and consequently the global nature of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, instead follows from the fact that the transformation $`\omega _i`$ belongs to the maximal torus.

Now we show that attempting to diagonalize the above WPL gives rise to a magnetic flux. The additional components along the Cartan subalgebra are, as already explained in the previous example,

$$A_i(x_1,x_2)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _3(_iV(x_1,x_2))V^1(x_1,x_2)].$$
(3.21)
They satisfy the following periodicity conditions

$`A_1(x_1+1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _3(_1V(x_1+1,x_2))V^1(x_1+1,x_2)]=A_1(x_1,x_2),`$ (3.22)
$`A_2(x_1+1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _3(_2V(x_1+1,x_2))V^1(x_1+1,x_2)]=A_1(x_1,x_2)2\pi ,`$ (3.23)
$`𝑨(x_1,x_2+1)=𝑨(x_1,x_2+1).`$ (3.24)
This is exactly the behavior of a (unit charge) instanton on $`T^2`$. We thus can say equivalently that this field carries a magnetic flux equal to one or, in the regular gauge, that WPL defines a mapping with unit winding number. Finally, we must demonstrate that a matrix $`V(x_1,x_2)`$ satisfying (3.17) indeed exists; in the parametrization (3.20), $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ must obey

$`\alpha (x_1+1,x_2)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ix_2)\alpha (x_1,x_2)\alpha (x_1,x_2+1)`$ $`=\alpha (x_1,x_2)`$ (3.25)
$`\beta (x_1+1,x_2)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ix_2)\beta (x_1,x_2)\beta (x_1,x_2+1)`$ $`=\beta (x_1,x_2).`$ (3.26)
These periodicity requirements are solved in terms of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$functions, namely by

$`\alpha (x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_2}{x_1}}\right](0,i)\beta (x_1,x_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝒩}}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{x_2}{x_1+\lambda }}\right](0,i)`$ (3.27)
where the normalizing factor $`𝒩`$ maintains the condition $`|\alpha |^2+|\beta |^2=1`$ and $`\lambda `$ is any (non-integer) constant. Our construction also suggests a simple and natural representative LGT on $`T^3`$, namely

$$U_n(t,x_1,x_2)=V^1(x_1,x_2)e^{i\pi nt\sigma _3/\beta }V(x_1,x_2)e^{i\pi nt\sigma _3/\beta };$$
(3.28)
it is globally defined on $`T^3`$ and has winding number $`n`$. \[A similar construction in a $`QCD_4`$ context was examined in .\]

## 4 The Fate of LGT

Throughout the literature  on effective nonabelian actions, a difficult question, as we have already mentioned, has been the role and form of LGT, a name indiscriminately attributed to two different classes of transformations. The first is that (discussed in Sec. 2) of the usual color LGT with nonvanishing $`W_2(U)`$. The second is that of the “abelian” LGT, whose action, in the gauge where the WPL is diagonal, is to shift the flat connection wrapping around the Euclidean time direction by an integer-valued diagonal matrix. In this gauge, it has the simple form

$$u(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }D\right)$$
(4.1)
where $`D`$ is a linear integer combination of the diagonal generators of $`SU(N)`$. In most explicit computations, the question of the invariance of the finite temperature effective actions under LGT refers to this second class. These transformations, as is manifest when written in the form (4.1), can be unwrapped smoothly, hence they cannot be considered a subset of the actual LGT. Calling them “LGT” at this level merely reflects their formal resemblance to the abelian ones. They are in fact LGT for the subgroup $`U(1)^{N1}`$, but they seemingly lose this property when immersed in $`SU(N)`$: their winding number $`W_2(u)`$, when computed from (4.1), vanishes. In the following, we will show that they are nevertheless LGT in a deeper sense: The “abelian” LGT appearing in the gauge where the WPL is diagonal and a magnetic flux is present become, in the dual picture where all the fields are made regular, transformations which are genuinely large ($`W_20`$). This dualism between large and small transformations is the manifestation of a more general problem: the meaning and the definition of LGT when we deal with non-trivial bundles, or more generically, with bundles whose transition functions are not the identity. In fact, the index $`W_2(U)`$ in the form (2.15) is not sufficient to capture the winding of a transformation when we use a non-global section of the gauge-bundle. For us, this problem was not dramatic since we just considered $`SU(N)`$, which admit only trivial bundles and thus we always had a global section from which to check if a transformation is large. This problem becomes unavoidable, however, for non-simply-connected group or dimensions different from three; one such case was indeed briefly discussed in Sec. 2.

It is convenient here to select the well-known (almost) temporal gauge

$$\dot{A}_0_0A_0=0A_0(t,𝒙)\frac{2\pi }{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙);$$
(4.2)
periodicity prevents one from setting $`A_0=0`$, since this would entail a trivial WPL. Investigating the role of LGT when we have already picked a specific gauge might appear self-contradictory, but our choice leaves a residual freedom that includes representatives of large gauge transformations. The fact that this gauge is attainable is shown for example in . Here we briefly review the main steps of its construction since they are necessary in understanding the residual gauge group. Imposing the gauge (4.2) amounts to finding periodic solutions of the linear differential equation

$$_tU(t,𝒙)+iA_0(t,𝒙)U(t,𝒙)=\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }U(t,𝒙)𝔸_0(𝒙),U(\beta ,𝒙)=U(0,𝒙).$$
(4.3)
In terms of the new variable $`V(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(t,𝒙)U(t,𝒙)`$, (4.3) reduces to the homogeneous equation,

$$_tV(t,𝒙)=\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }V(t,𝒙)𝔸_0(𝒙),$$
(4.4)
since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t,𝒙)=P\mathrm{exp}(i_0^t𝑑t^{}A_0(t^{},𝒙))`$ obeys $`_t\mathrm{\Omega }(t,𝒙)+iA_0(t,𝒙)\mathrm{\Omega }(t,𝒙)=0`$. Since $`𝔸_0(𝒙)`$ is time-independent, (4.4) can be promptly integrated

$$V(t,𝒙)=\widehat{V}(𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right).$$
(4.5)
Thus the general solution of (4.3) is

$$U(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{\Omega }(t,𝒙)\widehat{V}(𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right).$$
(4.6)
Imposing the periodicity condition $`U(\beta ,𝒙)=U(0,𝒙)`$ determines the possible values $`𝔸_0(𝒙)`$ in terms of WPL, according to

$$\widehat{V}^1(𝒙)\mathrm{\Omega }(\beta ,𝒙)\widehat{V}(𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙)\right),$$
(4.7)
i.e., $`𝔸_0`$ is essentially the logarithm of WPL. Whether this logarithm always defines a global quantity is not obvious; however one can see easily that, at least for regular maps, it does. \[Even in the general case this logarithm can actually be safely taken, but establishing that requires more careful analysis.\]

We now probe the residual gauge freedom remaining after the choice (4.2); (4.6) immediately implies that any transformation of the form

$$U(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)\widehat{V}(𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔹_0(𝒙)\right),$$
(4.8)
preserves (4.2) if

$$\widehat{V}^1(𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)\widehat{V}(𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i𝔹_0(𝒙)\right),$$
(4.9)
which is just (4.7), but only within the class of gauge-equivalent fields that respect (4.2). Let us change variables from $`𝔹_0(𝒙)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)`$ by means of

$$𝔹_0(𝒙)=\widehat{V}^1(𝒙)\left(𝔸_0(𝒙)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)\right)\widehat{V}(𝒙).$$
(4.10)
This final shift to the variable $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ then leads to the simple but powerful statement

$$\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙))=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\left(𝔸_0(𝒙)+\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)\right)\right).$$
(4.11)
If $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙))`$ is a regular map, this implies, for all $`𝒙`$, the two conditions

$$[\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙)),\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)]=0,\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙))=1,$$
(4.12)
so the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are integers. We can thus conclude that the most general transformation that preserves our gauge choice is

$$U(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }t\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)\right)\widehat{V}(𝒙).$$
(4.13)
Now it is immediate to recognize a connection with the previous section: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)`$ is nothing but the (properly normalized) auxiliary function $`g(𝒙)`$ introduced in (3.10). More generally it could be any integer combination of the $`g`$ associated to the different roots. Thus if $`A_0(𝒙)`$ corresponds to a field whose WPL is not smoothly diagonalizable, the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)`$ can be chosen to carry this information, through having a non-trivial index. As a consequence,

$$U(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }t\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)\right)$$
(4.14)
preserves the gauge (4.2); it is both LGT and periodic. The LGT property follows from the fact the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)`$ is not smoothly diagonalizable. In fact, recalling that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒙)`$ has been identified with $`g(𝒙)=h^1\alpha h`$, we can write

$$_tU=\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }U\mathrm{\Lambda },_iU=[U,h^1_ih].$$
(4.15)
In turn, the index of the transformation can be recast as

$$W_2(U)=\frac{i}{8\pi \beta }_0^\beta 𝑑t_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑xϵ^{ij}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Lambda }[U^1[U,h^1_ih],U^1[U,h^1_jh]]).$$
(4.16)
It is easy to see that the integrand in $`W_2`$ is the sum of two terms,

$$Xϵ^{ij}Tr\mathrm{\Lambda }[h^1_ih,h^1_jh],Yϵ^{ij}Tr\mathrm{\Lambda }[h^1_ih,U^1h^1_jh],$$
(4.17)
and that $`Y`$ is a total time derivative whose integral vanishes by periodicity, while $`X`$ is time-independent. Hence, it easily follows that

$$W_2(U)=1/4\pi d^2xX=2n_2(\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(4.18)
But $`n_2(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is precisely the value, at $`𝑨=0`$, of the index defined in (3.11). This finally proves that the residual group for non-diagonalizable WPL still contains (the “true”) LGT. Of course, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is neither fixed nor unique: there are in general $`N1`$ linearly independent matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$ that commute with $`A_0`$. Therefore we can construct in principle a wide array of transformations by taking integer linear combinations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$. Unfortunately, this space does not contain all the large gauge transformations, but just those whose index is an even multiple of the flux associated to the torus bundle. However, their action on $`A_0`$ is simply the shift

$$A_0A_0+2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(4.19)
When we diagonalize the WPL (and consequently $`A_0`$), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ also diagonalizes since it commutes with $`A_0`$. In terms of these diagonal forms $`(a_0)`$, the above equation reduces to

$$a_0a_0+2\pi D,$$
(4.20)
where $`D`$ is an integer linear combination of the diagonal generators of $`SU(N)`$. These transformations can be interpreted to act on the constant part of the eigenvalues of $`a_0`$; but this is exactly the result of a transformation of the form (4.1).

Summarizing, when we gauge-diagonalize WPL (which does not alter our gauge condition $`\dot{A}_0=0`$), the surviving LGT are further reduced to the simpler form (4.1). This is, in a certain sense, expected because we limit our gauge functions to those of the torus bundle in the process and the surviving LGT share this fate: They become LGT of the torus bundle gauge group $`U(1)^{N1}`$. When the fluxes vanish, obviously no large transformation survives the chosen gauge fixing. In this limit, the flat connection becomes essentially irrelevant and non-trivial interplays between topological quantities in the magnetic sector are absent. Only the (topologically dull) electric sector remains.

## 5 Vanishing $`𝑬`$

The final example in Sec. 3 illustrated the seemingly paradoxical, extreme situation of starting with no magnetic field and ending up with a field on the maximal torus that actually carries a flux. In the recent literature  on explicit calculations of effective actions, the opposite extreme has also been considered, where instead, $`𝑬`$ vanished. In the discussions of the general structure of these latter configurations, a certain amount of confusion has arisen, whose origin lies in non-gauge invariant descriptions of the fluxes discussed here. Hence we next review the general form of such fluxes.

Since the vanishing of $`𝑬`$ is a gauge invariant property, we simplify our analysis by choosing the gauge of Sec. 4, and from now assume that $`A_0(t,𝒙)=𝔸_0(𝒙)`$; the latter is not arbitrary however, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is constrained to be covariantly constant

$$D_i\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }+[A_i(0,𝒙),\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(5.1)
Its gauge invariant content can be understood by taking the derivative of $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }^n)`$:

$$_i(\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }^n))=n\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}_i\mathrm{\Omega })=n\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{n1}D_i\mathrm{\Omega })=0,$$
(5.2)
i.e., the trace of any power of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is independent of $`𝒙`$, and its eigenvalues are all constant. Similarly, the Bianchi identities imply that the magnetic field $`BF_{12}`$ is covariantly conserved,

$$D_tB(t,𝒙)=_tB(t,𝒙)+i[𝔸_0(𝒙),B(t,𝒙)]=0,$$
(5.3)
or equivalently,

$$_t\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)B(t,𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)\right]=0.$$
(5.4)
When integrated between $`(0,t)`$, this yields

$$B(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)B(0,𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi it}{\beta }𝔸_0(𝒙)\right).$$
(5.5)
This does not yet imply that $`B(t,𝒙)`$ can be made time-independent, because the WPL does not define a legitimate, periodic, gauge transformation101010We allow only periodic transformations since for the moment we want to have globally defined potentials, namely ones that do not differ by a gauge transformation when we change charts on $`S^1`$. still. The periodicity condition $`B(0,𝒙)=B(\beta ,𝒙)`$ does require the WPL to commute with $`B(0,𝒙)`$,

$$[B(0,𝒙),\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i𝔸_0(𝒙)\right)]=0.$$
(5.6)
In the following we limit ourselves to regular WPL (recall again that a regular map means, for $`SU(N)`$, that all its eigenvalues are different); most of the result will not depend on this technical assumption; we shall comment further on this point. Then (5.6) immediately entails that $`[𝔸_0,B(0,𝒙)]=0`$, which, combined with (5.5), is equivalent to the time-independence of $`B`$.

So far, we have seen that one we can always achieve a gauge where $`A_0`$ and $`B`$ are both time-independent and commute. The following steps become much easier if we further diagonalize $`A_0`$ and $`B`$, as can be always arranged because the residual gauge freedom contains all time-independent transformations. The price is that the components of $`𝑨`$ along the Cartan subalgebra might live on a non-trivial torus bundle, but we have learned how to deal with this difficulty in Sec. 3. Thus, from now on we have, in our “torus gauge”,

$$𝔸_0(𝒙)=a_0^iH_i\mathrm{and}B(𝒙)=^i(𝒙)H_i.$$
(5.7)
where the $`H_i`$ generate the Cartan subalgebra. The factor $`a_0^i`$ are constant, being linear combinations of the eigenvalues of the WPL. The vanishing of $`𝑬`$ allows us to make both $`B`$ and $`𝑨`$ time-independent. In fact, in our diagonal gauge, this condition ($`𝑬_t𝑨+[a_0,𝑨]=0`$) can be easily integrated between $`(0,t)`$ to yield

$`𝑨(t,𝒙)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi it}{\beta }}a_0\right)𝑨(0,𝒙)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi it}{\beta }}a_0\right).`$ (5.8)
This has the same structure as (5.5) and, by the same arguments, leads to the analogous conclusion,

$$[a_0,𝑨(0,𝒙)]=0,$$
(5.9)
and consequently to time-independence, $`𝑨(t,𝒙)=𝑨(0,𝒙)`$.

Summarizing, for vanishing electric field, if the WPL is a regular map, we can always choose a gauge where all connections are time-independent, $`A_0`$ is also space-independent and finally $`[A_0,𝑨]=0`$. This configuration can carry a magnetic flux.111111It has been claimed  that there exist configurations with vanishing $`𝑬`$ that are not gauge equivalent to those obtained above. In particular, it was stated that there are, in this class, connections that are genuinely time-dependent. However, two points were overlooked: First, the possibility of diagonalizing $`A_0`$ through residual gauge transformations was not exploited. Second, only globally defined gauge transformations were allowed, a requirement we saw to be too restrictive once non-trivial torus bundles were admitted. In particular our result shows that if $`𝑬=0`$, a magnetic flux must be present for there at all to be a nontrivial effective action in the PV sector: otherwise the candidate CS action, $`Tr(a_0B)`$, vanishes.

We now briefly comment on non-regular maps. In general, this question is very involved, as one must know the general structure of the sub-manifold where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has degenerate eigenvalues. For us, $`𝑬=0`$ provides a substantial simplification; the eigenvalues do not depend on $`𝒙`$, and therefore the presence of degenerate ones is also $`𝒙`$-independent. This protects us from pathologies such as permutations of the eigenvalues arising from their flow through the spatial surface, so our results persist also in this context.

## 6 Summary

We have studied the interplay between color (already present at T=0) and thermal LGT, and the consequences of the ensuing topological complications. The central quantity that carries the large information is the WPL, generalizing the flat connection of the simple abelian U(1). We provided the relevant mathematical framework for keeping track of the mapping involved in this “double LGT” world. We then exhibited explicit non-singular LGT, studied their effects on WPL, and stressed the novel index that measures topological obstruction to its global diagonalization. We also linked the index to extension of the usual global WPL diagonalization process with a wider class of transformations that are not globally defined, but require use of local charts. Our explicit constructions, besides the mentioned LGT example, included the gauge potentials in temporal gauge for configurations with nonvanishing index. Then, for vanishing $`𝑬`$ (that we do not believe to be an essential restriction), we showed precisely how “magnetism without magnetism” arises, i.e., how transforming configurations with vanishing B gives rise to gauge invariant magnetic flux properties in the Cartan subalgebra directions. In the process, we corrected some misconceptions in the recent literature.

The clarifications we hope to have provided here should be thought of as an entry to a number of issues we have left untouched. To mention a few, the effect of an index on the parity-violating parts of the effective action/Dirac determinant might be quite extensive; perhaps it could be probed using some simple but indicative special configurations. Any fallout to nonperturbative D=4 effects would of course be particularly important, but may be more remote in view of the pivotal role of odd dimension in our considerations. Finally, the “kinematics” we have attempted to sort out should be of use in a more explicit analysis of QCD3 dynamics, perhaps without recourse to particular field configurations.

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant PHY99-73935; D.S. was supported by TMR grant FMRX CT96–0045. D.S. and L.G. were supported by the Bruno Rossi program during the final phase of this work, begun in the previous millennium; both thank MIT for its warm hospitality. We thank C. Isham for useful correspondence.