Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

September 28, 2006

Puzzle Pieces Falling Into Place

Posted by Urs Schreiber

There should be a 3-group G 3G_3 governing Chern-Simons theory for gauge group GG. Which one is it?

I would like to present evidence that it should be the strict 3-group #

(1)G 3=(U(1)Ω^GPG) G_3 = (U(1) \to \hat \Omega G \to P G)

which is a sub-3-group of the non-strict automorphism 3-group #

(2)AUT(String G) \mathrm{AUT}(\mathrm{String}_G)

of the String G\mathrm{String}_G # 2-group #

(3)String G=(Ω^GPG). \mathrm{String}_G = (\hat \Omega G \to P G) \,.

Moreover, the canonical lax 2-representation #

(4)ρ:Σ(String G)Σ(C 2) \rho : \Sigma(\mathrm{String}_G) \to \Sigma(C_2)

for C 2=Hilb C_2 = \mathrm{Hilb}_\mathbb{C} should extend canonically to a lax 3-representation

(5)ρ˜:Σ(G 3)End(Σ(C 2)) \tilde \rho : \Sigma(G_3) \to \mathrm{End}(\Sigma(C_2))

on endomorphisms of C 2C_2 #.

Unless I am mixed up - which is your task to find out - this suggests to relate the correspondence

(6)2D CFT3D TFT \text{2D CFT} \leftrightarrow \text{3D TFT}

to higher Schreier theory #.

Here is my evidence.

  • First of all, G 3=(U(1)Ω^GPG)G_3 = (U(1) \to \hat \Omega G \to P G) is indeed a sub-3-group of AUT(Ω^GPG)\mathrm{AUT}(\hat \Omega G \to P G).

    In fact, I think that for any strict 2-group (HtG) (H \stackrel{t}{\to} G) we get a strict 3-group ker(t)HtG \mathrm{ker}(t) \to H \stackrel{t}{\to} G which is a sub-3-group of AUT(HG), \mathrm{AUT}(H \to G) \,, by restricting all vertical morphisms f()f(\bullet) in this calculation to identities.

  • It is thought to be known that the obstruction for a GG-bundle on XX to lift to a String G\mathrm{String}_G-2-bundle # on XX is a Chern-Simons 2-gerbe # classified by (half of) the first Pontryagin class. I think the Deligne 4-cocycle of that Chern-Simons 2-gerbe # is precisely a nonabelian transition cocycle for the 3-group (U(1)Ω^GPG)(U(1) \to \hat \Omega G \to P G).
  • The 3-representation ρ˜:Aut(Σ(G 2))End(Σ(C 2))\tilde \rho : \mathrm{Aut}(\Sigma(G_2)) \to \mathrm{End}(\Sigma(C_2)) is obtained from the lax ρ:Σ(G 2)Σ(C 2)\rho : \Sigma(G_2) \to \Sigma(C_2) by noticing that the relevant constructions in Aut(Σ(G 2))\mathrm{Aut}(\Sigma(G_2)) # and End(Σ(C 2))\mathrm{End}(\Sigma(C_2)) # involve the same diagrams. The central U(1)U(1) is in both cases realized in terms of the modifications of pseudonatural transformations of auto/endomorphisms of a 2-category.
  • 3-transport with values in G 3=(U(1)Ω^GPG)G_3 = (U(1) \to \hat \Omega G \to P G) (as well as the 3-vector transport associated under ρ˜\tilde \rho) associates to 1-, 2- and 3-paths essentially the sort of data that people like Freed # and Stolz & Teichner (see the table on p. 78 of their text ) have identified. Here I say “essentially” because there is an issue with different equivalent incarnations of String G\mathrm{String}_G. This is a point that requires more detailed discussion.
  • This seems to indicate a connection between ρ˜\tilde \rho-associated # 3-transport and the 3-transport which seems to underlie # the FRS description # of Chern-Simons/CFT.
  • Finally, if we allow ourselves to think of the 2D/3D QFTs here as strings/membranes, then the identification G 3=AUT(String) GG_3 = \mathrm{AUT}(String)_G matches exactly the proposed identification # of the gauge 3-group of the corresponding target space theory.
Posted at September 28, 2006 1:53 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/951

4 Comments & 2 Trackbacks

Re: Puzzle Pieces falling into Place

Just a comment on the strict 3-group ker(t)HGker(t) \to H \to G; I think it might equivalent (biequivalent) to HGH \to G, but I suppose that’s sort of ok - we are looking for inner automorphisms. I’ll have to think about this one

Posted by: David Roberts on September 29, 2006 2:33 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Puzzle Pieces falling into Place

I think it might equivalent (biequivalent) to HGH \to G

Yes, right. I should have commented on that. We had run into this issue before, for instance here (and also by private email), going back to the considerations on nn-curvature # and the description of nn-connections in terms of higher Schreier theory #.

Let’s look at the analogous situation one level down.

Say we have a central extension

(1)1U(1)H^H1 1 \to U(1) \to \hat H \to H \to 1

of an ordinary group HH.

Say we want to understand lifts of principal HH-bundles to H^\hat H-bundles. These lifts are obstructed by the corresponding U(1)1U(1)\to 1 lifting gerbes. If this lifting gerbe is nontrivial, the lift does not exist.

Notice this:

These (U(1)1)(U(1)\to 1)-lifting gerbes together with the HH-bundles they correspond to, provide exactly the data of a trivializable nonabelian gerbe with 2-group

(2)U(1)H^. U(1) \to \hat H \,.

If you write it down, you see immediately that the 3-cocycle of a (U(1)H^)(U(1) \to \hat H)-gerbe is the same as that of the (possibly twisted) bundle obtained by lifting a 2-cocycle for an HH-bundle to H^\hat H.

So this is the same sort of situation as with the 3-group above:

the 2-group

(3)(U(1)H^) (U(1) \to \hat H)

should be equivalent to

(4)(1H). (1 \to H) \,.

Correspondingly, all (U(1)H^)(U(1)\to \hat H)-gerbes are trivializable.

In fact, they are trivializable because they are all manifestly trivialized by a twisted H^\hat H-bundle.

But, if you take the (U(1)H^)(U(1)\to \hat H) 3-cocycle and forget the H^\hat H-part, just remembering the U(1)U(1)-part, you do get a (U(1)1)(U(1)\to 1) 3-cocycle, which is (in general) non-trivializable as a (U(1)1)(U(1)\to 1)-cocycle.

I think this is what is going on in the Chern-Simons theory, too.

As supportive evidence, consider this: Stolz and Teichner emphasize that a string bundle, i.e. a (Ω^GPG)(\hat \Omega G \to P G)-gerbe, provides a trivialization for Chern-Simons theory (pp. 79-80).

For these reasons I think it does make sense to consider these “blown up” nn-groups such as U(1)H^U(1)\to \hat H and ker(t)HtG\mathrm{ker}(t) \to H \stackrel{t}{\to} G.

While the nn-bundles with these structure groups will be trivializable, there is interesting information in how they are trivialized, i.e. which morphism (twisted (n1)(n-1)-bundle) trivializes them.

Posted by: urs on September 29, 2006 10:19 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Puzzle Pieces falling into Place

As the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, have you gained a better view of what the picture is? Could you describe it in terms of the “X is a Y-structure in the context Z” story you told us about here?

Posted by: David Corfield on September 29, 2006 11:04 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Puzzle Pieces falling into Place

As the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, have you gained a better view of what the picure is?

What made puzzle pieces fall - and apparently even into place - was, for me, the observation (stated here and supported - or in fact explained - there) that the right notion of nn-transport with values in TT is not, in general, an nn-functor with values in TT, but an (n+1)(n+1)-functor with values in Aut(T)\mathrm{Aut}(T) (or, more generally, End(T)\mathrm{End}(T)).

For the relevant applications, we may find TT sitting inside End(T)\mathrm{End}(T) as part of the “inner” endomorphisms. Let me call these Inn(T)\mathrm{Inn}(T).

But even if we restrict to these inner morphisms, there are more degrees of freedom in Inn(T)\mathrm{Inn}(T) than in TT. There are injections TInn(T)End(T). T \stackrel{\subset}{\to} \mathrm{Inn}(T) \stackrel{\subset}{\to} \mathrm{End}(T) \,.

More precisely - for T=Σ(C)T = \Sigma(C) the suspension of a monoidal category - Inn(Σ(T))\mathrm{Inn}(\Sigma(T)) looks essentially like Σ(T)\Sigma(T), only that 2-morphisms of Σ(T)\Sigma(T), which are 2-globes R f R \array{ \bullet &\stackrel{R}{\to}& \bullet \\ &\;\Downarrow f& \\ \bullet &\stackrel{R'}{\to}& \bullet } are replaced by squares R v f f u f R , \array{ \bullet &\stackrel{R}{\to}& \bullet \\ v_f \downarrow\;\; &\;\Downarrow f& \;\;\downarrow u_f \\ \bullet &\stackrel{R'}{\to}& \bullet } \,, and that there are now 3-morphisms going between the vertical sides of these squares.

Now, unless I am mixed up, the new freedom provided by these vertical arrows v fv_f and u fu_f accounts in particular for the following structures:

  • For 2-functors into T=Σ(G 2)T = \Sigma(G_2), for G 2G_2 a strict 2-group, we have v f=Idv_f = \mathrm{Id} and u fu_f provides # the fake curvature #.
  • In particular, for 2-functors into T=Σ(HtG)T = \Sigma(H \stackrel{t}{\to} G), we have (ker(t)HtG)Aut(HG)(\mathrm{ker}(t) \to H \stackrel{t}{\to} G) \subset \mathrm{Aut}(H \to G), with u f=Idu_f = \mathrm{Id} and the ker(t)\mathrm{ker}(t)-degree of freedom in the morphisms u fu fu_f \to u'_f which run “perpendicular to (HG)(H \to G)”.
  • For lax 2-functors into T=Σ(C 2)T = \Sigma(C_2), for C 2C_2 a monoidal category with duals on objects, v fv_f and u fu_f seem to provide # the “Wilson lines” running perpendicular to the boundary in Chern-Simons 3D TFT.

The third point can be understood as the image under a 3-representation of the second point.

Could you describe it in terms of the “X is a Y-structure in the context Z” story you told us about here?

Very roughly, my impression is this:

The “Y-structure” we are dealing with is:

- an nn-transport pseudofunctor tra:P nEnd(T) \mathrm{tra} : P_n \to \mathrm{End}(T) with associated curvature curv tra:P n+1End(T). \mathrm{curv}_\mathrm{tra} : P_{n+1} \to \mathrm{End}(T) \,.

Then

  • A non-fake-flat principal (HG)(H \to G)-gerbe with connection is a Y-structure of the above sort for TT a 2-groupoid with vertex 2-group equivalent to Σ(HG)\Sigma(H \to G)
  • Chern-Simons theory with gauge group GG is the quantum theory of # a Y-structure as above, which is associated to a principal String G=(Ω^GPG)\mathrm{String}_G = (\hat \Omega G \to P G)-gerbe example above by a canonical 3-rep.

    In particular, the relation 2D CFT3D TFT \text{2D CFT} \leftrightarrow \text{3D TFT} is induced by tracurv tra \mathrm{tra} \leftrightarrow \mathrm{curv}_\mathrm{tra}

The first of these two items I think I understand sufficiently. For the second item I have so far no full description. But I do have the evidence provided in the entry above. There are probably refinements necessary in my statement of this second item.

But that’s the picture that I thought I see emerging.

Posted by: urs on September 29, 2006 12:17 PM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post WZW as Transition 1-Gerbe of Chern-Simons 2-Gerbe
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: How the WZW 1-gerbe arises as the transition 1-gerbe of the Chern-Simons 2-gerbe.
Tracked: October 29, 2006 5:11 PM
Read the post A 3-Category of twisted Bimodules
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: A 3-category of twisted bimodules.
Tracked: November 3, 2006 2:20 PM

Post a New Comment