DOCSLIB.ORG

A Few Remarks on Topological Field Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Preprint typeset in JHEP style - HYPER VERSION A Few Remarks On Topological Field Theory Gregory W. Moore Abstract: Physics 695, Fall 2015. September 9 - December 14, 2015. Version April 30, 2016 Contents 1. Introduction 4 2. Basic Ideas 4 2.1 More Structure 7 3. Some Basic Notions In Category Theory 9 3.1 Basic Definitions 9 3.2 Groupoids 16 3.3 Tensor Categories 17 3.4 Other Tensor Categories 18 3.5 Z2-graded vector spaces 18 3.6 Category Of Representations Of A Group 18 4. Bordism 19 4.1 Unoriented Bordism: Definition And Examples 19 4.2 The Bordism Category Bordhd−1,di 20 SO 4.3 The Oriented Bordism Category Bordhd−1,di 20 4.4 Other Bordism Categories 22 5. The Definition Of Topological Field Theory 22 6. Some General Properties 23 6.1 Unitarity 29 7. One Dimensional Topological Field Theory 29 8. Two Dimensional TFT And Commutative Frobenius Algebras 31 8.1 The Sewing Theorem 36 8.1.1 A Little Singularity Theory 38 8.1.2 Proof Of The Sewing Theorem 40 8.2 Remarks On The Unoriented Case 42 9. Computing Amplitudes 46 9.1 Summing over topologies 47 9.2 Semisimple algebras 48 10. Some examples of commutative Frobenius algebras arising in physical problems 51 10.1 Example 1: Finite Group Theory 51 10.2 Example 2: Loop Groups And The Fusion Ring Of A Rational Conformal Field Theory 53 – 1 – 10.2.1 Central Extension Of Loop Algebras 53 10.2.2 Central Extensions Of Loop Groups 55 10.2.3 The Wess-Zumino Term 55 10.2.4 Construction Of The Cocycle For LG 61 10.2.5 Integrable Highest Weight Representations 62 10.3 Example 3: The Cohomology Of A Compact Oriented Manifold 70 10.4 Example 4: Landau-Ginzburg theory 71 10.5 Example 5: Quantum cohomology 72 11. Emergent Spacetime 73 11.1 The algebra of functions on a topological space X 73 11.2 Application To 2D TFT 75 12. Quantum Mechanics And C∗ Algebras 76 12.1 Banach Algebras 77 12.2 C∗ Algebras 80 12.3 Units In Banach Algebras 82 12.4 The Spectrum Of An Element a B 83 ∈ 12.5 Commutative Banach Algebras 86 12.5.1 Characters And Spec(A) 86 12.5.2 Ideals And Maximal Ideals 86 12.5.3 The Gelfand Transform 87 12.5.4 Commutative C∗ Algebras 90 12.5.5 Application of Gelfand’s Theorem: The Spectrum Of A Self-Adjoint Element Of A 93 12.5.6 Compactness and noncompactness 93 12.6 Noncommutative Topology: The C∗-Algebra Dictionary 97 12.6.1 Hopf Algebras And Quantum Groups 99 12.7 The Irrational (And Rational) Rotation Algebras 105 12.7.1 Definition 105 12.7.2 Realization In ( ) 109 B H 12.7.3 Electrons Confined To Two-Dimensions In A Magnetic Field 110 12.7.4 Magnetic Translation Group 117 12.7.5 The Algebra For θ Rational 118 Aθ 12.7.6 Two-Dimensional Electrons On A Torus In A Magnetic Field 120 12.7.7 Band Theory 129 12.7.8 Crystallographic Symmetry And Point Group Equivariance 137 12.7.9 Electron In A Periodic Potential And A Magnetic Field 142 12.7.10The Effective Topological Field Theory 151 12.8 Deforming The Algebra Of Functions On R2n 151 12.8.1 The Moyal (or ) Product 151 ∗ 12.8.2 The Dipole Model 153 12.8.3 The Weyl Transform 154 – 2 – 12.8.4 The Wigner Function 157 12.8.5 Field Theory On A Noncommutative Space 159 12.9 Relation To Open String Theory 159 12.9.1 String Theory In A p-nutshell 159 12.9.2 Toroidal Compactification 168 12.9.3 Closed Strings And T -Duality 169 12.9.4 Relation to electric-magnetic duality 195 12.10Deformations Of Algebras And Hochschild Cohomology 203 12.10.1Poisson Manifolds 208 12.11C∗-Algebra Approach To Quantum Mechanics 208 12.11.1Positive Elements And Maps For C∗ Algebras 208 12.11.2States On A C∗-Algebra 209 12.11.3GNS Construction 211 12.11.4Operator Topologies 213 12.11.5Von Neumann Algebras And Measure Spaces 215 12.11.6The Spectral Theorem 216 12.11.7States And Operators In Classical Mechanics 218 12.11.8States And Operators In Quantum Mechanics 219 13. Boundary conditions 220 14. Open and closed 2D TFT in the semisimple case: D-branes and vector bundles 226 15. Closed strings from open strings 228 15.1 The Grothendieck group 229 16. Three Dimensions And Modular Tensor Categories 230 17. Other Generalizations 230 18. Higher Categories, Locality, and extended objects 230 19. References 233 A. Sums Over Symplectic Lattices And Theta Functions 233 A.1 Symplectic structures, complex structures, and metrics 233 A.2 Statement Of The Problem 235 A.3 Level κ Theta Functions 236 A.4 Splitting instanton sums 237 A.5 Geometrical Interpretation 239 B. Generators For OZ(Q) 239 – 3 – 1. Introduction Topological field theory is an excellent pedagogical tool for introducing both some basic ideas of physics along with some beautiful mathematical ideas. The idea of TFT arose from both the study of two-dimensional conformal field theories and from Witten’s work on the relation of Donaldson theory to N=2 supersymmetric field theory and Witten’s work on the Jones polynomial and three-dimensional quantum field theories. In conformal field theory, Graeme Segal stated a number of axioms for the definition of a CFT. These were adapted to define a notion of a TFT by Atiyah. TFT might be viewed as a basic framework for physics. It assigns Hilbert spaces, states, and transition amplitudes to topological spaces in a way that captures the most primitive notions of locality. By stripping away the many complications of “real physics” one is left with a very simple structure. Nevertheless, the resulting structure is elegant, it is related to beautiful algebraic structures which, at least in two dimensions, which have surprisingly useful consequences. This is one case where one can truly “solve the theory.” Of course, we are interested in more complicated theories. But the basic framework here can be adapted to any field theory. What changes is the geometric category under consideration. Thus, it offers one approach to the general question of “What is a quantum field theory?” 2. Basic Ideas It is possible to speak of physics in 0-dimensional spacetime. From the functional integral viewpoint this is quite natural: Path integrals become ordinary integrals. It is also very fruitful to consider string theories whose target spaces are 0-dimensional spacetimes. Nev- ertheless, in the vast majority of physical problems we work with systems in d spacetime dimensions with d> 0. We will henceforth assume d> 0. What are the most primitive things we want from a physical theory in d spacetime dimensions? In a physical theory one often decomposes spacetime into space and time as in (1). If space is a (d 1)-dimensional manifold Y then, in quantum mechanics, we associate − to it a vector space of states (Y ). H d−1 Of course, in quantum mechanics (Y ) usually has more structure - it is a Hilbert H d−1 space. But in the spirit of developing just the most primitive aspects we will not incorporate that for the moment. (The notion of a unitary TFT captures the Hilbert space, as described below.) Moreover, in a generic physical theory there are natural operators acting on this Hilbert space such as the Hamiltonian. The spectrum of the Hamiltonian and other physical observables depends on a great deal of data. Certainly they depend on the metric on spacetime since a nonzero energy defines a length scale ~c L = . E In topological field theory one ignores most of this structure, and focuses on the depen- dence of (Y ) on the topology of Y . For simplicity, we will initially assume Y is compact H without boundary. – 4 – Figure 1: A spacetime Xd = Y R. Y is (d 1)-dimensional space, possibly with nontrivial × − topology. So: In topological field theory we want to have an association: (d 1)-manifolds Y to vector spaces: Y (Y ), such that “ (Y ) is the same for − → H H homeomorphic vector spaces.” What this means is that if there is a homeomorphism ϕ : Y Y ′ (2.1) → then there is a corresponding isomorphism of vector spaces: ϕ : (Y ) (Y ′) (2.2) ∗ H →H so that composition of homeomorphisms corresponds to composition of vector space iso- morphisms. In particular, self-homeomorphisms of Y act as automorphisms of (Y ): It H therefore provides a (possibly trivial) representation of the diffeomorphism group. Now, we also want to incorporate some form of locality, at the most primitive level. Thus, if we take disjoint unions (Y Y )= (Y ) (Y ) (2.3) H 1 ∐ 2 H 1 ⊗H 2 Note that (2.3) implies that we should assign to ( ) the field of definition of our vector H ∅ space. For simplicity we will take ( )= C, although one could use other ground fields. H ∅ Remark: In algebraic topology it is quite common to assign an abelian group or vector space to a topological space. This is what the cohomology groups do, for example. But here – 5 – we see a big difference from the standard algebraic topology examples. In those examples the spaces add under disjoint union. In quantum mechanics the spaces multiply. This is the fundamental reason why many topologists refer to the topological invariants arising from topological field theories as “quantum invariants.” Finally, there is an obvious homeomorphism Y Y ′ = Y ′ Y (2.4) ∐ ∼ ∐ and hence there must be an isomorphism Ω : (Y ) (Y ′) (Y ′) (Y ) (2.5) H ⊗H →H ⊗H Figure 2: Generalizing the product structure, a d-dimensional bordism X can include topology change between the initial (d 1)-dimensional spatial slices Yin and the final spatial slice Yout.
Recommended publications
  • Central Extensions of Lie Algebras of Symplectic and Divergence Free

    Central Extensions of Lie Algebras of Symplectic and Divergence Free

    Central extensions of Lie algebras of symplectic and divergence free vector fields Bas Janssens and Cornelia Vizman Abstract In this review paper, we present several results on central extensions of the Lie algebra of symplectic (Hamiltonian) vector fields, and compare them to similar results for the Lie algebra of (exact) divergence free vector fields. In particular, we comment on universal central extensions and integrability to the group level. 1 Perfect commutator ideals The Lie algebras of symplectic and divergence free vector fields both have perfect commutator ideals: the Lie algebras of Hamiltonian and exact divergence free vector fields, respectively. 1.1 Symplectic vector fields Let (M,ω) be a compact1, connected, symplectic manifold of dimension 2n. Then the Lie algebra of symplectic vector fields is denoted by X(M,ω) := {X ∈ X(M); LX ω =0} . ∞ The Hamiltonian vector field Xf of f ∈ C (M) is the unique vector field such that iXf ω = −df. Since the Lie bracket of X, Y ∈ X(M,ω) is Hamiltonian with i[X,Y ]ω = −dω(X, Y ), the Lie algebra of Hamiltonian vector fields ∞ Xham(M,ω) := {Xf ; f ∈ C (M)} is an ideal in X(M,ω). The map X 7→ [iX ω] identifies the quotient of X(M,ω) 1 by Xham(M,ω) with the abelian Lie algebra HdR(M), 1 0 → Xham(M,ω) → X(M,ω) → HdR(M) → 0 . (1) arXiv:1510.05827v1 [math.DG] 20 Oct 2015 Proposition 1.1. ([C70]) The Lie algebra Xham(M,ω) of Hamiltonian vector fields is perfect, and coincides with the commutator Lie algebra of the Lie algebra X(M,ω) of symplectic vector fields.
  • Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer

    Simulating Quantum Field Theory with a Quantum Computer

    Simulating quantum field theory with a quantum computer John Preskill Lattice 2018 28 July 2018 This talk has two parts (1) Near-term prospects for quantum computing. (2) Opportunities in quantum simulation of quantum field theory. Exascale digital computers will advance our knowledge of QCD, but some challenges will remain, especially concerning real-time evolution and properties of nuclear matter and quark-gluon plasma at nonzero temperature and chemical potential. Digital computers may never be able to address these (and other) problems; quantum computers will solve them eventually, though I’m not sure when. The physics payoff may still be far away, but today’s research can hasten the arrival of a new era in which quantum simulation fuels progress in fundamental physics. Frontiers of Physics short distance long distance complexity Higgs boson Large scale structure “More is different” Neutrino masses Cosmic microwave Many-body entanglement background Supersymmetry Phases of quantum Dark matter matter Quantum gravity Dark energy Quantum computing String theory Gravitational waves Quantum spacetime particle collision molecular chemistry entangled electrons A quantum computer can simulate efficiently any physical process that occurs in Nature. (Maybe. We don’t actually know for sure.) superconductor black hole early universe Two fundamental ideas (1) Quantum complexity Why we think quantum computing is powerful. (2) Quantum error correction Why we think quantum computing is scalable. A complete description of a typical quantum state of just 300 qubits requires more bits than the number of atoms in the visible universe. Why we think quantum computing is powerful We know examples of problems that can be solved efficiently by a quantum computer, where we believe the problems are hard for classical computers.
  • Conformal Symmetry in Field Theory and in Quantum Gravity

    Conformal Symmetry in Field Theory and in Quantum Gravity

    universe Review Conformal Symmetry in Field Theory and in Quantum Gravity Lesław Rachwał Instituto de Física, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília DF 70910-900, Brazil; [email protected] Received: 29 August 2018; Accepted: 9 November 2018; Published: 15 November 2018 Abstract: Conformal symmetry always played an important role in field theory (both quantum and classical) and in gravity. We present construction of quantum conformal gravity and discuss its features regarding scattering amplitudes and quantum effective action. First, the long and complicated story of UV-divergences is recalled. With the development of UV-finite higher derivative (or non-local) gravitational theory, all problems with infinities and spacetime singularities might be completely solved. Moreover, the non-local quantum conformal theory reveals itself to be ghost-free, so the unitarity of the theory should be safe. After the construction of UV-finite theory, we focused on making it manifestly conformally invariant using the dilaton trick. We also argue that in this class of theories conformal anomaly can be taken to vanish by fine-tuning the couplings. As applications of this theory, the constraints of the conformal symmetry on the form of the effective action and on the scattering amplitudes are shown. We also remark about the preservation of the unitarity bound for scattering. Finally, the old model of conformal supergravity by Fradkin and Tseytlin is briefly presented. Keywords: quantum gravity; conformal gravity; quantum field theory; non-local gravity; super- renormalizable gravity; UV-finite gravity; conformal anomaly; scattering amplitudes; conformal symmetry; conformal supergravity 1. Introduction From the beginning of research on theories enjoying invariance under local spacetime-dependent transformations, conformal symmetry played a pivotal role—first introduced by Weyl related changes of meters to measure distances (and also due to relativity changes of periods of clocks to measure time intervals).
  • 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introductory Remarks on Supersymmetry. 1.2

    1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introductory Remarks on Supersymmetry. 1.2

    1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introductory remarks on supersymmetry. 1.2. Classical mechanics, the electromagnetic, and gravitational fields. 1.3. Principles of quantum mechanics. 1.4. Symmetries and projective unitary representations. 1.5. Poincar´esymmetry and particle classification. 1.6. Vector bundles and wave equations. The Maxwell, Dirac, and Weyl - equations. 1.7. Bosons and fermions. 1.8. Supersymmetry as the symmetry of Z2{graded geometry. 1.1. Introductory remarks on supersymmetry. The subject of supersymme- try (SUSY) is a part of the theory of elementary particles and their interactions and the still unfinished quest of obtaining a unified view of all the elementary forces in a manner compatible with quantum theory and general relativity. Supersymme- try was discovered in the early 1970's, and in the intervening years has become a major component of theoretical physics. Its novel mathematical features have led to a deeper understanding of the geometrical structure of spacetime, a theme to which great thinkers like Riemann, Poincar´e,Einstein, Weyl, and many others have contributed. Symmetry has always played a fundamental role in quantum theory: rotational symmetry in the theory of spin, Poincar´esymmetry in the classification of elemen- tary particles, and permutation symmetry in the treatment of systems of identical particles. Supersymmetry is a new kind of symmetry which was discovered by the physicists in the early 1970's. However, it is different from all other discoveries in physics in the sense that there has been no experimental evidence supporting it so far. Nevertheless an enormous effort has been expended by many physicists in developing it because of its many unique features and also because of its beauty and coherence1.
  • Projective Unitary Representations of Infinite Dimensional Lie Groups

    Projective Unitary Representations of Infinite Dimensional Lie Groups

    Projective unitary representations of infinite dimensional Lie groups Bas Janssens and Karl-Hermann Neeb January 5, 2015 Abstract For an infinite dimensional Lie group G modelled on a locally convex Lie algebra g, we prove that every smooth projective unitary represen- tation of G corresponds to a smooth linear unitary representation of a Lie group extension G] of G. (The main point is the smooth structure on G].) For infinite dimensional Lie groups G which are 1-connected, regular, and modelled on a barrelled Lie algebra g, we characterize the unitary g-representations which integrate to G. Combining these results, we give a precise formulation of the correspondence between smooth pro- jective unitary representations of G, smooth linear unitary representations of G], and the appropriate unitary representations of its Lie algebra g]. Contents 1 Representations of locally convex Lie groups 5 1.1 Smooth functions . 5 1.2 Locally convex Lie groups . 6 2 Projective unitary representations 7 2.1 Unitary representations . 7 2.2 Projective unitary representations . 7 3 Integration of Lie algebra representations 8 3.1 Derived representations . 9 3.2 Globalisation of Lie algebra representations . 10 3.2.1 Weak and strong topology on V . 11 3.2.2 Regular Lie algebra representations . 15 4 Projective unitary representations and central extensions 20 5 Smoothness of projective representations 25 5.1 Smoothness criteria . 25 5.2 Structure of the set of smooth rays . 26 1 6 Lie algebra extensions and cohomology 28 7 The main theorem 31 8 Covariant representations 33 9 Admissible derivations 36 9.1 Admissible derivations .
  • WHAT IS a CHAOTIC ATTRACTOR? 1. Introduction J. Yorke Coined the Word 'Chaos' As Applied to Deterministic Systems. R. Devane

    WHAT IS a CHAOTIC ATTRACTOR? 1. Introduction J. Yorke Coined the Word 'Chaos' As Applied to Deterministic Systems. R. Devane

    WHAT IS A CHAOTIC ATTRACTOR? CLARK ROBINSON Abstract. Devaney gave a mathematical definition of the term chaos, which had earlier been introduced by Yorke. We discuss issues involved in choosing the properties that characterize chaos. We also discuss how this term can be combined with the definition of an attractor. 1. Introduction J. Yorke coined the word `chaos' as applied to deterministic systems. R. Devaney gave the first mathematical definition for a map to be chaotic on the whole space where a map is defined. Since that time, there have been several different definitions of chaos which emphasize different aspects of the map. Some of these are more computable and others are more mathematical. See [9] a comparison of many of these definitions. There is probably no one best or correct definition of chaos. In this paper, we discuss what we feel is one of better mathematical definition. (It may not be as computable as some of the other definitions, e.g., the one by Alligood, Sauer, and Yorke.) Our definition is very similar to the one given by Martelli in [8] and [9]. We also combine the concepts of chaos and attractors and discuss chaotic attractors. 2. Basic definitions We start by giving the basic definitions needed to define a chaotic attractor. We give the definitions for a diffeomorphism (or map), but those for a system of differential equations are similar. The orbit of a point x∗ by F is the set O(x∗; F) = f Fi(x∗) : i 2 Z g. An invariant set for a diffeomorphism F is an set A in the domain such that F(A) = A.
  • Of Operator Algebras Vern I

    Of Operator Algebras Vern I

    proceedings of the american mathematical society Volume 92, Number 2, October 1984 COMPLETELY BOUNDED HOMOMORPHISMS OF OPERATOR ALGEBRAS VERN I. PAULSEN1 ABSTRACT. Let A be a unital operator algebra. We prove that if p is a completely bounded, unital homomorphism of A into the algebra of bounded operators on a Hubert space, then there exists a similarity S, with ||S-1|| • ||S|| = ||p||cb, such that S_1p(-)S is a completely contractive homomorphism. We also show how Rota's theorem on operators similar to contractions and the result of Sz.-Nagy and Foias on the similarity of p-dilations to contractions can be deduced from this result. 1. Introduction. In [6] we proved that a homomorphism p of an operator algebra is similar to a completely contractive homomorphism if and only if p is completely bounded. It was known that if S is such a similarity, then ||5|| • ||5_11| > ||/9||cb- However, at the time we were unable to determine if one could choose the similarity such that ||5|| • US'-1!! = ||p||cb- When the operator algebra is a C*- algebra then Haagerup had shown [3] that such a similarity could be chosen. The purpose of the present note is to prove that for a general operator algebra, there exists a similarity S such that ||5|| • ||5_1|| = ||p||cb- Completely contractive homomorphisms are central to the study of the repre- sentation theory of operator algebras, since they are precisely the homomorphisms that can be dilated to a ^representation on some larger Hilbert space of any C*- algebra which contains the operator algebra.
  • The Chiral De Rham Complex of Tori and Orbifolds

    The Chiral De Rham Complex of Tori and Orbifolds

    The Chiral de Rham Complex of Tori and Orbifolds Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Fakult¨atf¨urMathematik und Physik der Albert-Ludwigs-Universit¨at Freiburg im Breisgau vorgelegt von Felix Fritz Grimm Juni 2016 Betreuerin: Prof. Dr. Katrin Wendland ii Dekan: Prof. Dr. Gregor Herten Erstgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Katrin Wendland Zweitgutachter: Prof. Dr. Werner Nahm Datum der mundlichen¨ Prufung¨ : 19. Oktober 2016 Contents Introduction 1 1 Conformal Field Theory 4 1.1 Definition . .4 1.2 Toroidal CFT . .8 1.2.1 The free boson compatified on the circle . .8 1.2.2 Toroidal CFT in arbitrary dimension . 12 1.3 Vertex operator algebra . 13 1.3.1 Complex multiplication . 15 2 Superconformal field theory 17 2.1 Definition . 17 2.2 Ising model . 21 2.3 Dirac fermion and bosonization . 23 2.4 Toroidal SCFT . 25 2.5 Elliptic genus . 26 3 Orbifold construction 29 3.1 CFT orbifold construction . 29 3.1.1 Z2-orbifold of toroidal CFT . 32 3.2 SCFT orbifold . 34 3.2.1 Z2-orbifold of toroidal SCFT . 36 3.3 Intersection point of Z2-orbifold and torus models . 38 3.3.1 c = 1...................................... 38 3.3.2 c = 3...................................... 40 4 Chiral de Rham complex 41 4.1 Local chiral de Rham complex on CD ...................... 41 4.2 Chiral de Rham complex sheaf . 44 4.3 Cechˇ cohomology vertex algebra . 49 4.4 Identification with SCFT . 49 4.5 Toric geometry . 50 5 Chiral de Rham complex of tori and orbifold 53 5.1 Dolbeault type resolution . 53 5.2 Torus .
  • Robot and Multibody Dynamics

    Robot and Multibody Dynamics

    Robot and Multibody Dynamics Abhinandan Jain Robot and Multibody Dynamics Analysis and Algorithms 123 Abhinandan Jain Ph.D. Jet Propulsion Laboratory 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena, California 91109 USA [email protected] ISBN 978-1-4419-7266-8 e-ISBN 978-1-4419-7267-5 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-7267-5 Springer New York Dordrecht Heidelberg London Library of Congress Control Number: 2010938443 c Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com) In memory of Guillermo Rodriguez, an exceptional scholar and a gentleman. To my parents, and to my wife, Karen. Preface “It is a profoundly erroneous truism, repeated by copybooks and by eminent people when they are making speeches, that we should cultivate the habit of thinking of what we are doing. The precise opposite is the case.
  • From String Theory and Moonshine to Vertex Algebras

    From String Theory and Moonshine to Vertex Algebras

    Preample From string theory and Moonshine to vertex algebras Bong H. Lian Department of Mathematics Brandeis University [email protected] Harvard University, May 22, 2020 Dedicated to the memory of John Horton Conway December 26, 1937 – April 11, 2020. Preample Acknowledgements: Speaker’s collaborators on the theory of vertex algebras: Andy Linshaw (Denver University) Bailin Song (University of Science and Technology of China) Gregg Zuckerman (Yale University) For their helpful input to this lecture, special thanks to An Huang (Brandeis University) Tsung-Ju Lee (Harvard CMSA) Andy Linshaw (Denver University) Preample Disclaimers: This lecture includes a brief survey of the period prior to and soon after the creation of the theory of vertex algebras, and makes no claim of completeness – the survey is intended to highlight developments that reflect the speaker’s own views (and biases) about the subject. As a short survey of early history, it will inevitably miss many of the more recent important or even towering results. Egs. geometric Langlands, braided tensor categories, conformal nets, applications to mirror symmetry, deformations of VAs, .... Emphases are placed on the mutually beneficial cross-influences between physics and vertex algebras in their concurrent early developments, and the lecture is aimed for a general audience. Preample Outline 1 Early History 1970s – 90s: two parallel universes 2 A fruitful perspective: vertex algebras as higher commutative algebras 3 Classification: cousins of the Moonshine VOA 4 Speculations The String Theory Universe 1968: Veneziano proposed a model (using the Euler beta function) to explain the ‘st-channel crossing’ symmetry in 4-meson scattering, and the Regge trajectory (an angular momentum vs binding energy plot for the Coulumb potential).
  • Entanglement, Conformal Field Theory, and Interfaces

    Entanglement, Conformal Field Theory, and Interfaces

    Entanglement, Conformal Field Theory, and Interfaces Enrico Brehm • LMU Munich • [email protected] with Ilka Brunner, Daniel Jaud, Cornelius Schmidt Colinet Entanglement Entanglement non-local “spooky action at a distance” purely quantum phenomenon can reveal new (non-local) aspects of quantum theories Entanglement non-local “spooky action at a distance” purely quantum phenomenon can reveal new (non-local) aspects of quantum theories quantum computing Entanglement non-local “spooky action at a distance” purely quantum phenomenon monotonicity theorems Casini, Huerta 2006 AdS/CFT Ryu, Takayanagi 2006 can reveal new (non-local) aspects of quantum theories quantum computing BH physics Entanglement non-local “spooky action at a distance” purely quantum phenomenon monotonicity theorems Casini, Huerta 2006 AdS/CFT Ryu, Takayanagi 2006 can reveal new (non-local) aspects of quantum theories quantum computing BH physics observable in experiment (and numerics) Entanglement non-local “spooky action at a distance” depends on the base and is not conserved purely quantum phenomenon Measure of Entanglement separable state fully entangled state, e.g. Bell state Measure of Entanglement separable state fully entangled state, e.g. Bell state Measure of Entanglement fully entangled state, separable state How to “order” these states? e.g. Bell state Measure of Entanglement fully entangled state, separable state How to “order” these states? e.g. Bell state ● distillable entanglement ● entanglement cost ● squashed entanglement ● negativity ● logarithmic negativity ● robustness Measure of Entanglement fully entangled state, separable state How to “order” these states? e.g. Bell state entanglement entropy Entanglement Entropy B A Entanglement Entropy B A Replica trick... Conformal Field Theory string theory phase transitions Conformal Field Theory fixed points in RG QFT invariant under holomorphic functions, conformal transformation Witt algebra in 2 dim.
  • MA427 Ergodic Theory

    MA427 Ergodic Theory

    MA427 Ergodic Theory Course Notes (2012-13) 1 Introduction 1.1 Orbits Let X be a mathematical space. For example, X could be the unit interval [0; 1], a circle, a torus, or something far more complicated like a Cantor set. Let T : X ! X be a function that maps X into itself. Let x 2 X be a point. We can repeatedly apply the map T to the point x to obtain the sequence: fx; T (x);T (T (x));T (T (T (x))); : : : ; :::g: We will often write T n(x) = T (··· (T (T (x)))) (n times). The sequence of points x; T (x);T 2(x);::: is called the orbit of x. We think of applying the map T as the passage of time. Thus we think of T (x) as where the point x has moved to after time 1, T 2(x) is where the point x has moved to after time 2, etc. Some points x 2 X return to where they started. That is, T n(x) = x for some n > 1. We say that such a point x is periodic with period n. By way of contrast, points may move move densely around the space X. (A sequence is said to be dense if (loosely speaking) it comes arbitrarily close to every point of X.) If we take two points x; y of X that start very close then their orbits will initially be close. However, it often happens that in the long term their orbits move apart and indeed become dramatically different.