Let $\tilde G$ be a central extension of a group $G$ by $U(1)$.

One common elegant definition is that there should be a short exact sequence of groups: $0 \to U(1) \to \tilde G \to G \to 0$

However, it turns out that one can always find a function $\theta: G\times G \to [0,2\pi)$ such that we can identify $\boxed{\tilde G = G \times U(1)}$ with the group structure $\boxed{(g,e^{i\alpha}) * (h,e^{i\beta}) = (gh,e^{i(\theta(g,h)+\alpha+\beta)})} $.

This choice of $\theta$ is not unique: under the re-identification of $G \to G: (g,e^{i\alpha}) \to (g,e^{i(\rho(g)+\alpha)})$, we get $\boxed{\theta(g,h) \to \theta(g,h)+\rho(g)+\rho(h)-\rho(gh)}$. I will refer to this as a 'gauge transformation' of $\theta$. The information in $\theta$ independent of such choices (i.e. 'gauge invariant') is what is of interest (which is what group cohomology/Schur multiplier encodes).

Now suppose we have a 'loop' in $G$. By this I mean successive applications of group elements such that in the end we are back where we started. The simplest example is a 'loop' associated to two commuting elements: $ghg^{-1}h^{-1} = 1$. Here is why I call it a loop:

loop in the group

Now define the 'integral' of $\theta$ around this loop as follows: $\boxed{\oint \theta := \theta(1,g) + \theta(g,h) + \theta(gh,g^{-1}) + \theta(ghg^{-1},h^{-1})}$

One can check that this is in fact the same for all possible $\theta$. It is a gauge invariant quantity.

More generally, if we have the loop defined by $g_1 g_2 \cdots g_N = 1$, then the integral defined by $\oint \theta := \sum_{n=1}^N \theta \left( \prod_{k=0}^{n-1} g_k, g_n\right) $ is gauge invariant. (Convention: $g_0 = 1$)

My question is the following: can one interpret a central extension of $G$ as being equivalent to some kind of '$U(1)$-bundle' defined on $G$, where $\theta$ plays the role of a sort of connection/gauge field, such that $\oint \theta$ then coincides with its holonomy/Wilson loop?

  • 1
    If $G$ and $\tilde{G}$ are meant to be topological (Hausdorff) groups and the extension is topological, this should be specified. – YCor Jan 15 '16 at 23:42
  • I am indeed not assuming this. For example even $G = \mathbb Z_2 \oplus \mathbb Z_2$ could apply, as this allows for non-trivial loops. That is why some of my words (such as 'bundle') are in scare quotes. The usual place where I see things as bundles/connections/holonomy, is in the context of manifolds, but here it seems that similar concepts apply (e.g. this 'gauge field' $\theta$ whose 'integral' around loops is gauge invariant, etc) whereas the basic context is different. That is exactly why I ask the question: is there a similar treatment as bundles, even though I don't assume a manifold? – Ruben Verresen Jan 16 '16 at 0:05
  • Look at Willerton, arxiv.org/pdf/math/0503266v1.pdf – AHusain Jan 16 '16 at 2:07
  • AHusain, thanks for the link. It does look interesting, but I am not well-acquainted with this type of mathematics. Is there a particular section you refer me to? In section 2.3 (p16-17), Willerton talks about how two-cycles (which my above $\theta$ is) lead to gerbes. Are you implying such a gerbe is the answer to my above question? – Ruben Verresen Jan 16 '16 at 2:30
  • Yes. See page 6 for a summary. You have set n=2. – AHusain Jan 16 '16 at 4:57

Your Answer

 
discard

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.