Categorified Gauge Theory and M-Theory
Posted by Urs Schreiber
Point particles are described by nonabelian gauge theory. We can lift this by stringifying/categorifying and realize the point particles as boundaries of strings described by abelian 2-bundles. We can lift this again to M-theory where the strings become membranes attached to 5-branes. By all what is known these membranes are described by abelian 3-bundles with their boundaries coupled to nonabelian 2-bundles.
On the physics side we went up from 0-branes to 1-branes to 2-branes. On the math side we went from 0-categories (sets) to 1-categories to 2-categories, i.e. from groups to 2-groups to 3-groups.
This is curious for the following reason: We know that on the physics side there is no further step. While there do exist -branes with these are not fundamental like the F-string and the M2 are, and – more importantly for the above pattern – there is no abelian 3-brane whose boundary would be a nonabelian membrane (as far as I am aware at least).
So what happens when we increase on the math side the dimension ever more? Can we get gauge theories for abelian 15-branes whose boundaries are nonabelian 14-branes?
I think the answer is: ‘NO’. More precisely, I think the following is true:
- 1-gauge theory admits arbitrary gauge groups
- 2-gauge theory admits gauge groups coming from crossed modules subject to the constraint of vanishing fake curvature
- 3-gauge theories admit gauge groups coming from crossed modules of crossed modules which are fake flat at the level of 2-morphism and abelian at the level of 3-morphisms
- necessarily all higher -gauge theories are abelian at the -morphism level
This looks interesting, because it sort of solves the above puzzle: The membrane is the endpoint in a chain of ‘stringifications’ and the gauge theory it couples to is an endpoint in a chain of categorifications in the sense that beyond it no nonabelian gauge theory is possible.
Here is a more precise statement of what I am saying together with what I think is the proof for it.
I am considering strict 3-groups. These are strict 2-categories together with a 2-functor
that has the usual commuting diagrams defining a group product.
I am claiming that this ‘horizontal product’ is the group product in
where , and are groups and in particular is an abelian group.
Let’s see how this works: Being a (strict) 2-functor the operation is a 1-functor on objects and 1-morphisms of our 3-group, which imposes the structure of a 2-group on these. Similarly 1-morphisms and 2-morphisms must form a 2-group.
This implies that any 2-morphism in our 3-group can be labeled by a triple
with , and such that the product 2-functor acts as follows:
First of all it follows that
Proposition 1
we have a complex
Proof.
(First of all let’s change the numbering systems. The objects in a group can be thought of as 1-morphism. Than the morphisms of a 2-group are 2-morphisms and those of a 3-group are 3-morphisms. That’s the numbering I’ll use in the following.)
A 3-morphism
in our 3-group goes between two 2-morphisms
and
which share the same source 1-morphism and target 1-morphism such that
Thus we have
and hence
by the above considerations.
That in fact the third group always has to be abelian is a consequence of one of the exchange laws in the 3-group.
There are three different products in a 3-group, one for each direction in and we should invent some convenient notation to keep track of them.
The ‘horizontal product’ defined by the 2-functor in the 3-group has already been denoted ‘’.
The 2-morphisms in the 3-group form a 2-group and in the context of 2-groups I always denote their composition by ‘’. This could be called the frontward product in the 3-group (but the vertical product with respect to the 2-group).
Finally there is ordinary composition of 3-morphisms. This is the vertical product in the 3-group and luckily I will not need it in the following discussion so that I won’t make up notation for it.
Proposition 2. The action of the frontward product on 3-morphisms is given by
Proof.
First of all we can identically write
Using the exchange law this is rearranged to
Here the only vertical composition left is that with trivial 3-morphisms between trivial 2-morphism which must be
This can now be used to show that
Proposition 3
The group in the product must be abelian.
Proof.
Use proposition 2 in two ways to compute
Performing the product operation as indicated yields
Using the exchange law first to reorder the products gives
It follows thst for all j and .
Of course this is a variation of the theme of the well-known Eckmann-Hilton argument.