Detect a sign invisible to local anomaly polynomials
Use the ordinary SU(2) global anomaly to distinguish infinitesimal consistency from determinant holonomy under large transformations.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Explain why a vanishing local cubic trace does not rule out a global anomaly.
- Count the ordinary SU(2) obstruction including representation multiplicities.
- State the spin-manifold assumptions and distinguish the newer non-spin SU(2) obstruction.
An effective action can satisfy every infinitesimal gauge Ward identity and still fail to define a consistent phase around a noncontractible loop in gauge-field configuration space. A global anomaly detects this failure. The classic four-dimensional SU(2) example produces a fermion-measure sign under a large gauge transformation. Its obstruction is discrete, so no small local coefficient in the ordinary six-form anomaly polynomial can capture the entire effect.
A locally anomaly-free group can still fail globally
Consider an ordinary SU(2) gauge theory on spin four-manifolds, with left-handed Weyl fermions in specified representations. The fundamental doublet is pseudoreal, and its symmetrized cubic trace vanishes. Therefore its perturbative four-dimensional gauge anomaly is zero. Nevertheless, gauge transformations on compactified spacetime have disconnected classes classified by . The nontrivial class cannot be reached by exponentiating a continuously shrinking sequence of infinitesimal transformations.
Transporting the chiral fermion functional integral around the associated loop can reverse its sign. For one doublet, the sign is minus one. The gauge-related configurations should describe the same physical situation, so an uncanceled sign prevents a gauge-invariant quantum definition. The issue is often described using the Pfaffian or the sign of a square root of a Dirac determinant, with the precise language depending on the fermion formulation. It is not ordinary symmetry breaking or an arbitrary phase convention that can be chosen independently at every background.
Use mod-two spectral flow rather than a local divergence
An interpolation between a gauge field and its large-gauge transform gives a family of four-dimensional Dirac operators. The parity of eigenvalue-pair crossings determines the sign change. Equivalently, a five-dimensional mapping-torus construction expresses it through a mod-two index. This is a different spectral invariant from the integer four-dimensional index controlling a local axial selection rule. The extra dimension organizes the family and its holonomy; it is not an additional physical spacetime dimension required in the original four-dimensional model.
For an isospin-j representation, the ordinary obstruction is controlled by the parity of twice its quadratic index. Normalize the doublet index to one half. Then is an integer, and contributions add modulo two. Representations of isospin one half, five halves, and so on can contribute an odd value. Pseudoreality alone therefore does not guarantee global consistency even though it removes the perturbative cubic trace.
Keep the global form and background structures explicit
A quark doublet with three color components contributes three weak doublets to this SU(2) test. A weak singlet contributes none, regardless of its Abelian charge. This explains why a local hypercharge sum and a global weak-doublet parity test are genuinely different calculations. Replacing SU(2) by a quotient group, admitting different bundles, or changing the allowed spacetime structure can alter the complete anomaly problem. The Lie algebra and perturbative Feynman rules alone do not specify those global choices.
The word global here refers to large transformations and topology, not necessarily to a global rather than gauged symmetry. A global anomaly of a dynamical gauge redundancy must cancel in a stand-alone theory. A corresponding obstruction for an external background global symmetry can instead be meaningful anomaly data constraining the infrared. A higher-dimensional inflow system can supply compensating variation for a boundary theory, but that changes the complete physical system and does not magically make the isolated anomalous four-dimensional gauge theory consistent.
Work it through
Count color copies before taking parity
A proposed spin-manifold SU(2) gauge theory has one left-handed doublet carrying three independent color labels and two additional color-singlet doublets. Other listed fields are weak singlets. Determine the ordinary global-anomaly sign. What happens after adding one more color-singlet doublet?
The colored multiplet supplies three independent weak doublets, and the two color-singlet doublets add two more. Thus the relevant count is five, not three multiplet names. Weak singlets contribute zero to this particular SU(2) test.
Five is odd, giving under the nontrivial large transformation. Each doublet's local cubic SU(2) anomaly vanishes, so this inconsistency would be missed by a perturbative triangle-only audit.
The extra singlet under color is still a weak doublet, bringing the count to six. The sign becomes , canceling the ordinary SU(2) obstruction. Any additional gauge-factor anomalies still require their own tests.
The original matter content has the ordinary SU(2) global anomaly; the added weak doublet removes its mod-two sign. This conclusion assumes the specified ordinary SU(2) group and spin-manifold setting.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · modular
Make a parity obstruction visible
Reset and set both controls to modulus m = 2 and additive step a = 1; predict orbit period 2, residue 1 after one Step and 0 after two. Reset and set both controls to m = 2 and a = 0; predict period 1 and residue 0 at every step. Interpret the first residue as sign parity. This additive toy has no gauge-field configuration space, Pfaffian, or five-dimensional spectral flow.
- Residue r0
- 0
- Orbit period · m/gcd(m,a)
- 12
- Distinct residues visited
- 1 of 12
Addition modulo m starts at zero: rₙ = na mod m. Playback advances two additions per second. The orbit has period m/gcd(m,a), including period one for a = 0. This is not a cryptographic security test or a primality algorithm. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forParity can retain an obstruction that an ordinary real-valued local coefficient misses; the modular orbit does not prove the SU(2) anomaly.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
In the same spin-manifold setting, take one isospin- Weyl multiplet and one isospin- multiplet. Compute their ordinary SU(2) anomaly parity using . Does adding one isospin- multiplet cancel this obstruction? State why this answer does not address the additional non-spin SU(2) anomaly.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
The three relevant integer weights are obtained from the same quadratic-index formula; reduce their sum modulo two only at the end.
Compare with the solution
The weights are , , and . Initially the total is 45, which is odd, so the ordinary anomaly is present. Adding the doublet gives 46, which is even and cancels it. The isospin-3/2 contribution is even for this particular spin-manifold test. Allowing non-spin manifolds with a combined spin-SU(2) structure introduces a different obstruction, so this parity calculation is not a statement that every such extended theory is consistent.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- Local anomaly polynomials do not determine every large-transformation phase.
- Count independent doublets and representation indices before reducing modulo two.
- The ordinary SU(2) criterion assumes a spin structure; broader settings require additional tests.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.