Bulk Fields and Induced Bimodules
Posted by Urs Schreiber
As I mentioned recently, Fjelstad, Fuchs, Runkel & Schweigert know how to describe 2-dimensional (rational) conformal field theory in terms of tangle diagrams in modular tensor categories .
There are various hints # that one can understand this formalism from the point of view of 2-transport # with values in .
Notice how this is rather analogous to principal 2-transport #, with values in a 2-group .
Instead of a 2-group, is just a 2-monoid. But the look and feel of both is rather similar: being modular tensor, in particular has left and right duals for all objects.
Many aspects of the diagrams drawn onto the worldsheet in the FRS formalism can be understood # from locally trivializing a 2-transport
which sends pieces of worldsheet to morphisms in .
One aspect of this is however a little troubling: only sees the 2-dimensional parameter space. However, FRS show that bulk field insertions in 2D CFT are represented diagrammatically by insertion points on the worldsheet at which ribbons emanate perpendicular to the worldsheet, into a third dimension.
In fact, this leads to a big story where the entire 2-dimensional field theory is described as the boundary part of a 3-dimensional topological field theory, generalizing the old observation by Witten on the relation between Chern-Simons theory and the Wess-Zumino model. I used to be puzzled about how to capture this 3-dimensional aspect of 2-dimensional CFT in terms of 2-dimensional transport.
But, remember, I also used to be puzzled about how to describe non fake-flat # principal 2-transport. There, the solution is # to pass from a 2-functor
with values in the the 2-group to the pseudo functor (a 3-functor, really!)
with values in the 3-group of automorphisms of .
Given what I said so far, there is really one question one should ask:
What happens if we consider weak 2-functors that send pieces of worldsheet not to a modular tensor category , but to the 3-monoid
of endomorphisms of ?
To get started, let’s just look at what happens at these bulk field insertions, first.
On the worldsheet, we usually have edges running which are labelled by a (special symmetric Frobenius) algebra object
internal to . More generally, the labels take values in bimodules
for (special symmetric Frobenius) algebra objects internal to .
At a bulk field insertion, we have a ribbon labelled by a simple object of coming down from above the worldsheet, and another ribbon, labelled by another simple object , running below the worldsheet. Where they both meet with a bimodule ribbon on the worldsheet, we rewire them using a morphism
of induced bimodules in .
This means in particular that we regard the object again as an -bimodule. acts from the right by first passig beneath (using the braiding in ) and then acting on as before.
Similarly, acts from the left on by first passing above , and then acting on as before.
Clearly, the braidings involved here reflect the 3-dimensional situation which I tried to describe.
Using the fact that the braiding of allows us to mimic the 3-dimensional structure (after all, a braided monoidal category is nothing but a 3-category with a single object, in disguise), I was able to essentially describe this situation in terms of locally trivialized 2-transport with values in . See the diagram on p. 7 here.
A problem with this description is that there is no sense in which the - and the -ribbons really run off in a perpendicular direction. Everything gets sort of projected onto the worldsheet as long as we just work in .
So I asked myself: what happens if we consider bimodule homomorphisms not in but in ?
Unless I made a mistake, the answer seems to be that we indeed get this way what is needed here. I describe some of the details in
For every object of , we get an inner endomorphism of (by an op-lax 2-functor) by conjugation
That’s how the 1-morphisms of sit inside .
The crucial new aspect is that a 2-morphism between two such 1-morphisms is now no longer just
but, since it now comes to us as a pseudonatural transformation of the above action by conjugation, is in fact a square
Recall that for the principal 2-transport, it was the freedom contained in the vertical morphisms of these squares which gave rise to the fake curvature #. Here, as is now quite manifest, these vertical morphisms play exactly the role that the objects and play in the bimodule homomorphism
mentioned above.
Moreover, we now also have 3-morphisms between these 2-morphisms. Since these come from modifications of pseudonatural transformations, it is not hard to see that they indeed describe “ribbons” attached to and running off into a third dimension.
Looking at the details, one finds that a morphism of bimodules in (using “inner endomorphisms” only, in a way I make precise in my notes), is in fact a morphism
of induced bimodules in , with and running off into the third dimension the way they should.