“Observer Space”: Cartan Geometry and Lifting General Relativity

This entry is a by-special-request blog, which Derek Wise invited me to write for the blog associated with the International Loop Quantum Gravity Seminar, and it will appear over there as well.  The ILQGS is a long-running regular seminar which runs as a teleconference, with people joining in from various countries, on various topics which are more or less closely related to Loop Quantum Gravity and the interests of people who work on it.  The custom is that when someone gives a talk, someone else writes up a description of the talk for the ILQGS blog, and Derek invited me to write up a description of his talk.  The audio file of the talk itself is available in .aiff and .wav formats, and the slides are here.

The talk that Derek gave was based on a project of his and Steffen Gielen’s, which has taken written form in a few papers (two shorter ones, “Spontaneously broken Lorentz symmetry for Hamiltonian gravity“, “Linking Covariant and Canonical General Relativity via Local Observers“, and a new, longer one called “Lifting General Relativity to Observer Space“).

The key idea behind this project is the notion of “observer space”, which is exactly what it sounds like: a space of all observers in a given universe.  This is easiest to picture when one has a spacetime – a manifold with a Lorentzian metric, – to begin with.  Then an observer can be specified by choosing a particular point in spacetime, as well as a unit future-directed timelike vector .  This vector is a tangent to the observer’s worldline at .  The observer space is therefore a bundle over , the “future unit tangent bundle”.  However, using the notion of a “Cartan geometry”, one can give a general definition of observer space which makes sense even when there is no underlying .

The result is a surprising, relatively new physical intuition is that “spacetime” is a local and observer-dependent notion, which in some special cases can be extended so that all observers see the same spacetime.  This is somewhat related to the relativity of locality, which I’ve blogged about previously.  Geometrically, it is similar to the fact that a slicing of spacetime into space and time is not unique, and not respected by the full symmetries of the theory of Relativity, even for flat spacetime (much less for the case of General Relativity).  Similarly, we will see a notion of “observer space”, which can sometimes be turned into a bundle over an objective spacetime , but not in all cases.

So, how is this described mathematically?  In particular, what did I mean up there by saying that spacetime becomes observer-dependent?

Cartan Geometry

The answer uses Cartan geometry, which is a framework for differential geometry that is slightly broader than what is commonly used in physics.  Roughly, one can say “Cartan geometry is to Klein geometry as Riemannian geometry is to Euclidean geometry”.  The more familiar direction of generalization here is the fact that, like Riemannian geometry, Cartan is concerned with manifolds which have local models in terms of simple, “flat” geometries, but which have curvature, and fail to be homogeneous.  First let’s remember how Klein geometry works.

Klein’s Erlangen Program, carried out in the mid-19th-century, systematically brought abstract algebra, and specifically the theory of Lie groups, into geometry, by placing the idea of symmetry in the leading role.  It describes “homogeneous spaces”, which are geometries in which every point is indistinguishable from every other point.  This is expressed by the existence of a transitive action of some Lie group of all symmetries on an underlying space.  Any given point will be fixed by some symmetries, and not others, so one also has a subgroup .  This is the “stabilizer subgroup”, consisting of all symmetries which fix .  That the space is homogeneous means that for any two points , the subgroups and are conjugate (by a symmetry taking to ).  Then the homogeneous space, or Klein geometry, associated to is, up to isomorphism, just the same as the quotient space of the obvious action of on .

The advantage of this program is that it has a great many examples, but the most relevant ones for now are:

• -dimensional Euclidean space. the Euclidean group is precisely the group of transformations that leave the data of Euclidean geometry, lengths and angles, invariant.  It acts transitively on .  Any point will be fixed by the group of rotations centred at that point, which is a subgroup of isomorphic to .  Klein’s insight is to reverse this: we may define Euclidean space by .
• -dimensional Minkowski space.  Similarly, we can define this space to be .  The Euclidean group has been replaced by the Poincaré group, and rotations by the Lorentz group (of rotations and boosts), but otherwise the situation is essentially the same.
• de Sitter space.  As a Klein geometry, this is the quotient .  That is, the stabilizer of any point is the Lorentz group – so things look locally rather similar to Minkowski space around any given point.  But the global symmetries of de Sitter space are different.  Even more, it looks like Minkowski space locally in the sense that the Lie algebras give representations and are identical, seen as representations of .  It’s natural to identify them with the tangent space at a point.  de Sitter space as a whole is easiest to visualize as a 4D hyperboloid in .  This is supposed to be seen as a local model of spacetime in a theory in which there is a cosmological constant that gives empty space a constant negative curvature.
• anti-de Sitter space. This is similar, but now the quotient is – in fact, this whole theory goes through for any of the last three examples: Minkowski; de Sitter; and anti-de Sitter, each of which acts as a “local model” for spacetime in General Relativity with the cosmological constant, respectively: zero; positive; and negative.

Now, what does it mean to say that a Cartan geometry has a local model?  Well, just as a Lorentzian or Riemannian manifold is “locally modelled” by Minkowski or Euclidean space, a Cartan geometry is locally modelled by some Klein geometry.  This is best described in terms of a connection on a principal -bundle, and the associated -bundle, over some manifold .  The crucial bundle in a Riemannian or Lorenztian geometry is the frame bundle: the fibre over each point consists of all the ways to isometrically embed a standard Euclidean or Minkowski space into the tangent space.  A connection on this bundle specifies how this embedding should transform as one moves along a path.  It’s determined by a 1-form on , valued in the Lie algebra of .

Given a parametrized path, one can apply this form to the tangent vector at each point, and get a Lie algebra-valued answer.  Integrating along the path, we get a path in the Lie group (which is independent of the parametrization).  This is called a “development” of the path, and by applying the -values to the model space , we see that the connection tells us how to move through a copy of as we move along the path.  The image this suggests is of “rolling without slipping” – think of the case where the model space is a sphere.  The connection describes how the model space “rolls” over the surface of the manifold .  Curvature of the connection measures the failure to commute of the processes of rolling in two different directions.  A connection with zero curvature describes a space which (locally at least) looks exactly like the model space: picture a sphere rolling against its mirror image.  Transporting the sphere-shaped fibre around any closed curve always brings it back to its starting position. Now, curvature is defined in terms of transports of these Klein-geometry fibres.  If curvature is measured by the development of curves, we can think of each homogeneous space as a flat Cartan geometry with itself as a local model.

This idea, that the curvature of a manifold depends on the model geometry being used to measure it, shows up in the way we apply this geometry to physics.

Gravity and Cartan Geometry

MacDowell-Mansouri gravity can be understood as a theory in which General Relativity is modelled by a Cartan geometry.  Of course, a standard way of presenting GR is in terms of the geometry of a Lorentzian manifold.  In the Palatini formalism, the basic fields are a connection and a vierbein (coframe field) called , with dynamics encoded in the Palatini action, which is the integral over of , where is the curvature 2-form for .

This can be derived from a Cartan geometry, whose model geometry is de Sitter space .   Then MacDowell-Mansouri gravity gets and by splitting the Lie algebra as .  This “breaks the full symmetry” at each point.  Then one has a fairly natural action on the -connection:

Here, is the part of the curvature of the big connection.  The splitting of the connection means that , and the action above is rewritten, up to a normalization, as the Palatini action for General Relativity (plus a topological term, which has no effect on the equations of motion we get from the action).  So General Relativity can be written as the theory of a Cartan geometry modelled on de Sitter space.

The cosmological constant in GR shows up because a “flat” connection for a Cartan geometry based on de Sitter space will look (if measured by Minkowski space) as if it has constant curvature which is exactly that of the model Klein geometry.  The way to think of this is to take the fibre bundle of homogeneous model spaces as a replacement for the tangent bundle to the manifold.  The fibre at each point describes the local appearance of spacetime.  If empty spacetime is flat, this local model is Minkowski space, , and one can really speak of tangent “vectors”.  The tangent homogeneous space is not linear.  In these first cases, the fibres are not vector spaces, precisely because the large group of symmetries doesn’t contain a group of translations, but they are Klein geometries constructed in just the same way as Minkowski space. Thus, the local description of the connection in terms of -valued forms can be treated in the same way, regardless of which Klein geometry occurs in the fibres.  In particular, General Relativity, formulated in terms of Cartan geometry, always says that, in the absence of matter, the geometry of space is flat, and the cosmological constant is included naturally by the choice of which Klein geometry is the local model of spacetime.

Observer Space

The idea in defining an observer space is to combine two symmetry reductions into one.  The reduction from to gives de Sitter space, as a model Klein geometry, which reflects the “symmetry breaking” that happens when choosing one particular point in spacetime, or event.  Then, the reduction of to similarly reflects the symmetry breaking that occurs when one chooses a specific time direction (a future-directed unit timelike vector).  These are the tangent vectors to the worldline of an observer at the chosen point, so the model Klein geometry, is the space of such possible observers.  The stabilizer subgroup for a point in this space consists of just the rotations of space around the corresponding observer – the boosts in translate between observers.  So locally, choosing an observer amounts to a splitting of the model spacetime at the point into a product of space and time. If we combine both reductions at once, we get the 7-dimensional Klein geometry .  This is just the future unit tangent bundle of de Sitter space, which we think of as a homogeneous model for the “space of observers”

A general observer space , however, is just a Cartan geometry modelled on .  This is a 7-dimensional manifold, equipped with the structure of a Cartan geometry.  One class of examples are exactly the future unit tangent bundles to 4-dimensional Lorentzian spacetimes.  In these cases, observer space is naturally a contact manifold: that is, it’s an odd-dimensional manifold equipped with a 1-form , the contact form, which is such that the top-dimensional form is nowhere zero.  This is the odd-dimensional analog of a symplectic manifold.  Contact manifolds are, intuitively, configuration spaces of systems which involve “rolling without slipping” – for instance, a sphere rolling on a plane.  In this case, it’s better to think of the local space of observers which “rolls without slipping” on a spacetime manifold .

Now, Minkowski space has a slicing into space and time – in fact, one for each observer, who defines the time direction, but the time coordinate does not transform in any meaningful way under the symmetries of the theory, and different observers will choose different ones.  In just the same way, the homogeneous model of observer space can naturally be written as a bundle .  But a general observer space may or may not be a bundle over an ordinary spacetime manifold, .  Every Cartan geometry gives rise to an observer space as the bundle of future-directed timelike vectors, but not every Cartan geometry is of this form, in any natural way. Indeed, without a further condition, we can’t even reconstruct observer space as such a bundle in an open neighborhood of a given observer.

This may be intuitively surprising: it gives a perfectly concrete geometric model in which “spacetime” is relative and observer-dependent, and perhaps only locally meaningful, in just the same way as the distinction between “space” and “time” in General Relativity. It may be impossible, that is, to determine objectively whether two observers are located at the same base event or not. This is a kind of “Relativity of Locality” which is geometrically much like the by-now more familiar Relativity of Simultaneity. Each observer will reach certain conclusions as to which observers share the same base event, but different observers may not agree.  The coincident observers according to a given observer are those reached by a good class of geodesics in moving only in directions that observer sees as boosts.

When one can reconstruct , two observers will agree whether or not they are coincident.  This extra condition which makes this possible is an integrability constraint on the action of the Lie algebra (in our main example, ) on the observer space .  In this case, the fibres of the bundle are the orbits of this action, and we have the familiar world of Relativity, where simultaneity may be relative, but locality is absolute.

Lifting Gravity to Observer Space

Apart from describing this model of relative spacetime, another motivation for describing observer space is that one can formulate canonical (Hamiltonian) GR locally near each point in such an observer space.  The goal is to make a link between covariant and canonical quantization of gravity.  Covariant quantization treats the geometry of spacetime all at once, by means of a Lagrangian action functional.  This is mathematically appealing, since it respects the symmetry of General Relativity, namely its diffeomorphism-invariance.  On the other hand, it is remote from the canonical (Hamiltonian) approach to quantization of physical systems, in which the concept of time is fundamental. In the canonical approach, one gets a Hilbert space by quantizing the space of states of a system at a given point in time, and the Hamiltonian for the theory describes its evolution.  This is problematic for diffeomorphism-, or even Lorentz-invariance, since coordinate time depends on a choice of observer.  The point of observer space is that we consider all these choices at once.  Describing GR in is both covariant, and based on (local) choices of time direction.

This is easiest to describe in the case of a bundle .  Then a “field of observers” to be a section of the bundle: a choice, at each base event in , of an observer based at that event.  A field of observers may or may not correspond to a particular decomposition of spacetime into space evolving in time, but locally, at each point in , it always looks like one.  The resulting theory describes the dynamics of space-geometry over time, as seen locally by a given observer.  In this case, a Cartan connection on observer space is described by to a -valued form.  This decomposes into four Lie-algebra valued forms, interpreted as infinitesimal transformations of the model observer by: (1) spatial rotations; (2) boosts; (3) spatial translations; (4) time translation.  The four-fold division is based on two distinctions: first, between the base event at which the observer lives, and the choice of observer (i.e. the reduction of to , which symmetry breaking entails choosing a point); and second, between space and time (i.e. the reduction of to , which symmetry breaking entails choosing a time direction).

This splitting, along the same lines as the one in MacDowell-Mansouri gravity described above, suggests that one could lift GR to a theory on an observer space .  This amount to describing fields on and an action functional, so that the splitting of the fields gives back the usual fields of GR on spacetime, and the action gives back the usual action.  This part of the project is still under development, but this lifting has been described.  In the case when there is no “objective” spacetime, the result includes some surprising new fields which it’s not clear how to deal with, but when there is an objective spacetime, the resulting theory looks just like GR.

 

Higher Structures in China

Since the last post, I’ve been busily attending some conferences, as well as moving to my new job at the University of Hamburg, in the Graduiertenkolleg 1670, “Mathematics Inspired by String Theory and Quantum Field Theory”.  The week before I started, I was already here in Hamburg, at the conference they were organizing “New Perspectives in Topological Quantum Field Theory“.  But since I last posted, I was also at the 20th Oporto Meeting on Geometry, Topology, and Physics, as well as the third Higher Structures in China workshop, at Jilin University in Changchun.  Right now, I’d like to say a few things about some of the highlights of that workshop.

Higher Structures in China III

So last year I had a bunch of discussions I had with Chenchang Zhu and Weiwei Pan, who at the time were both in Göttingen, about my work with Jamie Vicary, which I wrote about last time when the paper was posted to the arXiv.  In that, we showed how the Baez-Dolan groupoidification of the Heisenberg algebra can be seen as a representation of Khovanov’s categorification.  Chenchang and Weiwei and I had been talking about how these ideas might extend to other examples, in particular to give nice groupoidifications of categorified Lie algebras and quantum groups.

That is still under development, but I was invited to give a couple of talks on the subject at the workshop.  It was a long trip: from Lisbon, the farthest-west of the main cities of (continental) Eurasia all the way to one of the furthest-East.   (Not quite the furthest, but Changchun is in the northeast of China, just a few hours north of Korea, and it took just about exactly 24 hours including stopovers to get there).  It was a long way to go for a three day workshop, but as there were also three days of a big excursion to Changbai Mountain, just on the border with North Korea, for hiking and general touring around.  So that was a sort of holiday, with 11 other mathematicians.  Here is me with Dany Majard, in a national park along the way to the mountains:

Here’s me with Alex Hoffnung, on Changbai Mountain (in the background is China):

And finally, here’s me a little to the left of the previous picture, where you can see into the volcanic crater.  The lake at the bottom is cut out of the picture, but you can see the crater rim, of which this particular part is in North Korea, as seen from China:

Well, that was fun!

Anyway, the format of the workshop involved some talks from foreigners and some from locals, with a fairly big local audience including a good many graduate students from Jilin University.  So they got a chance to see some new work being done elsewhere – mostly in categorification of one kind or another.  We got a chance to see a little of what’s being done in China, although not as much as we might have. I gather that not much is being done yet that fit the theme of the workshop, which was part of the reason to organize the workshop, and especially for having a session aimed specially at the graduate students.

Categorified Algebra

This is a sort of broad term, but certainly would include my own talk.  The essential point is to show how the groupoidification of the Heisenberg algebra is a representation of Khovanov’s categorification of the same algebra, in a particular 2-category.  The emphasis here is on the fact that it’s a representation in a 2-category whose objects are groupoids, but whose morphisms aren’t just functors, but spans of functors – that is, composites of functors and co-functors.  This is a pretty conservative weakening of “representations on categories” – but it lets one build really simple combinatorial examples.  I’ve discussed this general subject in recent posts, so I won’t elaborate too much.  The lecture notes are here, if you like, though – they have more detail than my previous post, but are less technical than the paper with Jamie Vicary.

Aaron Lauda gave a nice introduction to the program of categorifying quantum groups, mainly through the example of the special case , somewhat along the same lines as in his introductory paper on the subject.  The story which gives the motivation is nice: one has knot invariants such as the Jones polynomial, based on representations of groups and quantum groups.  The Jones polynomial can be categorified to give Khovanov homology (which assigns a complex to a knot, whose graded Euler characteristic is the Jones polynomial) – but also assigns maps of complexes to cobordisms of knots.  One then wants to categorify the representation theory behind it – to describe actions of, for instance, quantum on categories.  This starting point is nice, because it can work by just mimicking the construction of and representations in terms of weight spaces: one gets categories which correspond to the “weight spaces” (usually just vector spaces), and the and operators give functors between them, and so forth.

Finding examples of categories and functors with this structure, and satisfying the right relations, gives “categorified representations” of the algebra – the monoidal categories of diagrams which are the “categorifications of the algebra” then are seen as the abstraction of exactly which relations these are supposed to satisfy.  One such example involves flag varieties.  A flag, as one might eventually guess from the name, is a nested collection of subspaces in some -dimensional space.  A simple example is the Grassmannian , which is the space of all 1-dimensional subspaces of (i.e. the projective space ), which is of course an algebraic variety.  Likewise, , the space of all -dimensional subspaces of is a variety.  The flag variety consists of all pairs , of a -dimensional subspace of , inside a -dimensional subspace (the case calls to mind the reason for the name: a plane intersecting a given line resembles a flag stuck to a flagpole).  This collection is again a variety.  One can go all the way up to the variety of “complete flags”, (where is -dimenisonal), any point of which picks out a subspace of each dimension, each inside the next.

The way this relates to representations is by way of geometric representation theory. One can see those flag varieties of the form as relating the Grassmanians: there are projections and , which act by just ignoring one or the other of the two subspaces of a flag.  This pair of maps, by way of pulling-back and pushing-forward functions, gives maps between the cohomology rings of these spaces.  So one gets a sequence , and maps between the adjacent ones.  This becomes a representation of the Lie algebra.  Categorifying this, one replaces the cohomology rings with derived categories of sheaves on the flag varieties – then the same sort of “pull-push” operation through (derived categories of sheaves on) the flag varieties defines functors between those categories.  So one gets a categorified representation.

Heather Russell‘s talk, based on this paper with Aaron Lauda, built on the idea that categorified algebras were motivated by Khovanov homology.  The point is that there are really two different kinds of Khovanov homology – the usual kind, and an Odd Khovanov Homology, which is mainly different in that the role played in Khovanov homology by a symmetric algebra is instead played by an exterior (antisymmetric) algebra.  The two look the same over a field of characteristic 2, but otherwise different.  The idea is then that there should be “odd” versions of various structures that show up in the categorifications of (and other algebras) mentioned above.

One example is the fact that, in the “even” form of those categorifications, there is a natural action of the Nil Hecke algebra on composites of the generators.  This is an algebra which can be seen to act on the space of polynomials in commuting variables, , generated by the multiplication operators , and the “divided difference operators” based on the swapping of two adjacent variables.  The Hecke algebra is defined in terms of “swap” generators, which satisfy some -deformed variation of the relations that define the symmetric group (and hence its group algebra).   The Nil Hecke algebra is so called since the “swap” (i.e. the divided difference) is nilpotent: the square of the swap is zero.  The way this acts on the objects of the diagrammatic category is reflected by morphisms drawn as crossings of strands, which are then formally forced to satisfy the relations of the Nil Hecke algebra.

The ODD Nil Hecke algebra, on the other hand, is an analogue of this, but the are anti-commuting, and one has different relations satisfied by the generators (they differ by a sign, because of the anti-commutation).  This sort of “oddification” is then supposed to happen all over.  The main point of the talk was to to describe the “odd” version of the categorified representation defined using flag varieties.  Then the odd Nil Hecke algebra acts on that, analogously to the even case above.

Marco Mackaay gave a couple of talks about the web algebra, describing the results of this paper with Weiwei Pan and Daniel Tubbenhauer.  This is the analog of the above, for , describing a diagram calculus which accounts for representations of the quantum group.  The “web algebra” was introduced by Greg Kuperberg – it’s an algebra built from diagrams which can now include some trivalent vertices, along with rules imposing relations on these.  When categorifying, one gets a calculus of “foams” between such diagrams.  Since this is obviously fairly diagram-heavy, I won’t try here to reproduce what’s in the paper – but an important part of is the correspondence between webs and Young Tableaux, since these are labels in the representation theory of the quantum group – so there is some interesting combinatorics here as well.

Algebraic Structures

Some of the talks were about structures in algebra in a more conventional sense.

Jiang-Hua Lu: On a class of iterated Poisson polynomial algebras.  The starting point of this talk was to look at Poisson brackets on certain spaces and see that they can be found in terms of “semiclassical limits” of some associative product.  That is, the associative product of two elements gives a power series in some parameter (which one should think of as something like Planck’s constant in a quantum setting).  The “classical” limit is the constant term of the power series, and the “semiclassical” limit is the first-order term.  This gives a Poisson bracket (or rather, the commutator of the associative product does).  In the examples, the spaces where these things are defined are all spaces of polynomials (which makes a lot of explicit computer-driven calculations more convenient). The talk gives a way of constructing a big class of Poisson brackets (having some nice properties: they are “iterated Poisson brackets”) coming from quantum groups as semiclassical limits.  The construction uses words in the generating reflections for the Weyl group of a Lie group .

Li Guo: Successors and Duplicators of Operads – first described a whole range of different algebra-like structures which have come up in various settings, from physics and dynamical systems, through quantum field theory, to Hopf algebras, combinatorics, and so on.  Each of them is some sort of set (or vector space, etc.) with some number of operations satisfying some conditions – in some cases, lots of operations, and even more conditions.  In the slides you can find several examples – pre-Lie and post-Lie algebras, dendriform algebras, quadri- and octo-algebras, etc. etc.  Taken as a big pile of definitions of complicated structures, this seems like a terrible mess.  The point of the talk is to point out that it’s less messy than it appears: first, each definition of an algebra-like structure comes from an operad, which is a formal way of summing up a collection of operations with various “arities” (number of inputs), and relations that have to hold.  The second point is that there are some operations, “successor” and “duplicator”, which take one operad and give another, and that many of these complicated structures can be generated from simple structures by just these two operations.  The “successor” operation for an operad introduces a new product related to old ones – for example, the way one can get a Lie bracket from an associative product by taking the commutator.  The “duplicator” operation takes existing products and introduces two new products, whose sum is the previous one, and which satisfy various nice relations.  Combining these two operations in various ways to various starting points yields up a plethora of apparently complicated structures.

Dany Majard gave a talk about algebraic structures which are related to double groupoids, namely double categories where all the morphisms are invertible.  The first part just defined double categories: graphically, one has horizontal and vertical 1-morphisms, and square 2-morphsims, which compose in both directions.  Then there are several special degenerate cases, in the same way that categories have as degenerate cases (a) sets, seen as categories with only identity morphisms, and (b) monoids, seen as one-object categories.  Double categories have ordinary categories (and hence monoids and sets) as degenerate cases.  Other degenerate cases are 2-categories (horizontal and vertical morphisms are the same thing), and therefore their own special cases, monoidal categories and symmetric monoids.  There is also the special degenerate case of a double monoid (and the extra-special case of a double group).  (The slides have nice pictures showing how they’re all degenerate cases).  Dany then talked about some structure of double group(oids) – and gave a list of properties for double groupoids, (such as being “slim” – having at most one 2-cell per boundary configuration – as well as two others) which ensure that they’re equivalent to the semidirect product of an abelian group with the “bicrossed product”  of two groups and (each of which has to act on the other for this to make sense).  He gave the example of the Poincare double group, which breaks down as a triple bicrossed product by the Iwasawa decomposition:

( is certain group of matrices).  So there’s a unique double group which corresponds to it – it has squares labelled by , and the horizontial and vertical morphisms by elements of and respectively.  Dany finished by explaining that there are higher-dimensional analogs of all this – -tuple categories can be defined recursively by internalization (“internal categories in -tuple-Cat”).  There are somewhat more sophisticated versions of the same kind of structure, and finally leading up to a special class of -tuple groups.  The analogous theorem says that a special class of them is just the same as the semidirect product of an abelian group with an -fold iterated bicrossed product of groups.

Also in this category, Alex Hoffnung talked about deformation of formal group laws (based on this paper with various collaborators).  FGL’s are are structures with an algebraic operation which satisfies axioms similar to a group, but which can be expressed in terms of power series.  (So, in particular they have an underlying ring, for this to make sense).  In particular, the talk was about formal group algebras – essentially, parametrized deformations of group algebras – and in particular for Hecke Algebras.  Unfortunately, my notes on this talk are mangled, so I’ll just refer to the paper.

Physics

I’m using the subject-header “physics” to refer to those talks which are most directly inspired by physical ideas, though in fact the talks themselves were mathematical in nature.

Fei Han gave a series of overview talks intorducing “Equivariant Cohomology via Gauged Supersymmetric Field Theory”, explaining the Stolz-Teichner program.  There is more, using tools from differential geometry and cohomology to dig into these theories, but for now a summary will do.  Essentially, the point is that one can look at “fields” as sections of various bundles on manifolds, and these fields are related to cohomology theories.  For instance, the usual cohomology of a space is a quotient of the space of closed forms (so the cohomology, , is a quotient of the space of closed -forms – the quotient being that forms differing by a coboundary are considered the same).  There’s a similar construction for the -theory , which can be modelled as a quotient of the space of vector bundles over .  Fei Han mentioned topological modular forms, modelled by a quotient of the space of “Fredholm bundles” – bundles of Banach spaces with a Fredholm operator around.

The first two of these examples are known to be related to certain supersymmetric topological quantum field theories.  Now, a TFT is a functor into some kind of vector spaces from a category of -dimensional manifolds and -dimensional cobordisms

Intuitively, it gives a vector space of possible fields on the given space and a linear map on a given spacetime.  A supersymmetric field theory is likewise a functor, but one changes the category of “spacetimes” to have both bosonic and fermionic dimension.  A normal smooth manifold is a ringed space , since it comes equipped with a sheaf of rings (each open set has an associated ring of smooth functions, and these glue together nicely).  Supersymmetric theories work with manifolds which change this sheaf – so a -dimensional space has the sheaf of rings where one introduces some new antisymmetric coordinate functions , the “fermionic dimensions”:

Then a supersymmetric TFT is a functor:

(where is the category of supersymmetric topological vector spaces – defined similarly).  The connection to cohomology theories is that the classes of such field theories, up to a notion of equivalence called “concordance”, are classified by various cohomology theories.  Ordinary cohomology corresponds then to -dimensional extended TFT (that is, with 0 bosonic and 1 fermionic dimension), and -theory to a -dimensional extended TFT.  The Stoltz-Teichner Conjecture is that the third example (topological modular forms) is related in the same way to a -dimensional extended TFT – so these are the start of a series of cohomology theories related to various-dimension TFT’s.

Last but not least, Chris Rogers spoke about his ideas on “Higher Geometric Quantization”, on which he’s written a number of papers.  This is intended as a sort of categorification of the usual ways of quantizing symplectic manifolds.  I am still trying to catch up on some of the geometry This is rooted in some ideas that have been discussed by Brylinski, for example.  Roughly, the message here is that “categorification” of a space can be thought of as a way of acting on the loop space of a space.  The point is that, if points in a space are objects and paths are morphisms, then a loop space shifts things by one categorical level: its points are loops in , and its paths are therefore certain 2-morphisms of .  In particular, there is a parallel to the fact that a bundle with connection on a loop space can be thought of as a gerbe on the base space.  Intuitively, one can “parallel transport” things along a path in the loop space, which is a surface given by a path of loops in the original space.  The local description of this situation says that a 1-form (which can give transport along a curve, by integration) on the loop space is associated with a 2-form (giving transport along a surface) on the original space.

Then the idea is that geometric quantization of loop spaces is a sort of higher version of quantization of the original space. This “higher” version is associated with a form of higher degree than the symplectic (2-)form used in geometric quantization of .   The general notion of n-plectic geometry, where the usual symplectic geometry is the case , involves a -form analogous to the usual symplectic form.  Now, there’s a lot more to say here than I properly understand, much less can summarize in a couple of paragraphs.  But the main theorem of the talk gives a relation between n-plectic manifolds (i.e. ones endowed with the right kind of form) and Lie n-algebras built from the complex of forms on the manifold.  An important example (a theorem of Chris’ and John Baez) is that one has a natural example of a 2-plectic manifold in any compact simple Lie group together with a 3-form naturally constructed from its Maurer-Cartan form.

At any rate, this workshop had a great proportion of interesting talks, and overall, including the chance to see a little more of China, was a great experience!

 

2-Erlangen Program; Manifold Calculus talk (Pedro Brito)

(Note: WordPress seems to be having some intermittent technical problem parsing my math markup in this post, so please bear with me until it, hopefully, goes away…)

As August is the month in which Portugal goes on vacation, and we had several family visitors toward the end of the summer, I haven’t posted in a while, but the term has now started up at IST, and seminars are underway, so there should be some interesting stuff coming up to talk about.

New Blog

First, I’ll point out that that Derek Wise has started a new blog, called simply “Simplicity“, which is (I imagine) what it aims to contain: things which seem complex explained so as to reveal their simplicity.  Unless I’m reading too much into the title.  As of this writing, he’s posted only one entry, but a lengthy one that gives a nice explanation of a program for categorified Klein geometries which he’s been thinking a bunch about.  Klein’s program for describing the geometry of homogeneous spaces (such as spherical, Euclidean, and hyperbolic spaces with constant curvature, for example) was developed at Erlangen, and goes by the name “The Erlangen Program”.  Since Derek is now doing a postdoc at Erlangen, and this is supposed to be a categorification of Klein’s approach, he’s referred to it the “2-Erlangen Program”.  There’s more discussion about it in a (somewhat) recent post by John Baez at the n-Category Cafe.  Both of them note the recent draft paper they did relating a higher gauge theory based on the Poincare 2-group to a theory known as teleparallel gravity.  I don’t know this theory so well, except that it’s some almost-equivalent way of formulating General Relativity

I’ll refer you to Derek’s own post for full details of what’s going on in this approach, but the basic motivation isn’t too hard to set out.  The Erlangen program takes the view that a homogeneous space is a space (let’s say we mean by this a topological space) which “looks the same everywhere”.  More precisely, there’s a group action by some , which we understand to be “symmetries” of the space, which is transitive.  Since every point is taken to every other point by some symmetry, the space is “homogeneous”.  Some symmetries leave certain points where they are – they form the stabilizer subgroup .  When the space is homogeneous, it is isomorphic to the coset space, .  So Klein’s idea is to say that any time you have a Lie group and a closed subgroup , this quotient will be called a “homogeneous space”.  A familiar example would be Euclidean space, , where is the Euclidean group and is the orthogonal group, but there are plenty of others.

This example indicates what Cartan geometry is all about, though – this is the next natural step after Klein geometry (Edit:  Derek’s blog now has a visual explanation of Cartan geometry, a.k.a. “generalized hamsterology”, new since I originally posted this).  We can say that Cartan is to Klein as Riemann is to Euclid.  (Or that Cartan is to Riemann as Klein is to Euclid – or if you want to get maybe too-precisely metaphorical, Cartan is the pushout of Klein and Riemann over Euclid).  The point is that Riemannian geometry studies manifolds – spaces which are not homogeneous, but look like Euclidean space locally.  Cartan geometry studies spaces which aren’t homogeneous, but can be locally modelled by Klein geometries.  Now, a Riemannian geometry is essentially a manifold with a metric, describing how it locally looks like Euclidean space.  An equivalent way to talk about it is a manifold with a bundle of Euclidean spaces (the tangent spaces) with a connection (the Levi-Civita connection associated to the metric).  A Cartan geometry can likewise be described as a -bundle with fibre with a connection

Then the point of the “2-Erlangen program” is to develop similar geometric machinery for 2-groups (a.k.a. categorical groups).  This is, as usual, a bit more complicated since actions of 2-groups are trickier than group-actions.  In their paper, though, the point is to look at spaces which are locally modelled by some sort of 2-Klein geometry which derives from the Poincare 2-group.  By analogy with Cartan geometry, one can talk about such Poincare 2-group connections on a space – that is, some kind of “higher gauge theory”.  This is the sort of framework where John and Derek’s draft paper formulates teleparallel gravity.  It turns out that the 2-group connection ends up looking like a regular connection with torsion, and this plays a role in that theory.  Their draft will give you a lot more detail.

Talk on Manifold Calculus

On a different note, one of the first talks I went to so far this semester was one by Pedro Brito about “Manifold Calculus and Operads” (though he ran out of time in the seminar before getting to talk about the connection to operads).  This was about motivating and introducing the Goodwillie Calculus for functors between categories of spaces.  (There are various references on this, but see for instance these notes by Hal Sadofsky). In some sense this is a generalization of calculus from functions to functors, and one of the main results Goodwillie introduced with this subject, is a functorial analog of Taylor’s theorem.  I’d seen some of this before, but this talk was a nice and accessible intro to the topic.

So the starting point for this “Manifold Calculus” is that we’d like to study functors from spaces to spaces (in fact this all applies to spectra, which are more general, but Pedro Brito’s talk was focused on spaces).  The sort of thing we’re talking about is a functor which, given a space , gives a moduli space of some sort of geometric structures we can put on , or of mappings from .  The main motivating example he gave was the functor

for some fixed manifold . Given a manifold , this gives the mapping space of all immersions of into .

(Recalling some terminology: immersions are maps of manifolds where the differential is nondegenerate – the induced map of tangent spaces is everywhere injective, meaning essentially that there are no points, cusps, or kinks in the image, but there might be self-intersections. Embeddings are, in addition, local homeomorphisms.)

Studying this functor means, among other things, looking at the various spaces of immersions of each into . We might first ask: can be immersed in at all – in other words, is nonempty?

So, for example, the Whitney Embedding Theorem says that if is at least , then there is an embedding of into (which is therefore also an immersion).

In more detail, we might want to know what is, which tells how many connected components of immersions there are: in other words, distinct classes of immersions which can’t be deformed into one another by a family of immersions. Or, indeed, we might ask about all the homotopy groups of , not just the zeroth: what’s the homotopy type of ? (Once we have a handle on this, we would then want to vary ).

It turns out this question is manageable, party due to a theorem of Smale and Hirsch, which is a generalization of Gromov’s h-principle – the original principle applies to solutions of certain kinds of PDE’s, saying that any solution can be deformed to a holomorphic one, so if you want to study the space of solutions up to homotopy, you may as well just study the holomorphic solutions.

The Smale-Hirsch theorem likewise gives a homotopy equivalence of two spaces, one of which is . The other is the space of “formal immersions”, called . It consists of all , where is smooth, and is a map of tangent spaces which restricts to , and is injective. These are “formally” like immersions, and indeed has an inclusion into , which happens to be a homotopy equivalence: it induces isomorphisms of all the homotopy groups. These come from homotopies taking each “formal immersion” to some actual immersion. So we’ve approximated , up to homotopy, by . (This “homotopy” of functors makes sense because we’re talking about an enriched functor – the source and target categories are enriched in spaces, where the concepts of homotopy theory are all available).

We still haven’t got to manifold calculus, but it will be all about approximating one functor by another – or rather, by a chain of functors which are supposed to be like the Taylor series for a function. The way to get this series has to do with sheafification, so first it’s handy to re-describe what the Smale-Hirsch theorem says in terms of sheaves. This means we want to talk about some category of spaces with a Grothendieck topology.

So lets let be the category whose objects are -dimensional manifolds and whose morphisms are embeddings (which, of course, are necessarily codimension 0). Now, the point here is that if is an embedding in , and has an immersion into , this induces an immersion of into . This amounst to saying is a contravariant functor:

That makes a presheaf. What the Smale-Hirsch theorem tells us is that this presheaf is a homotopy sheaf – but to understand that, we need a few things first.

First, what’s a homotopy sheaf? Well, the condition for a sheaf says that if we have an open cover of , then

So to say how is a homotopy sheaf, we have to give a topology, which means defining a “cover”, which we do in the obvious way – a cover is a collection of morphisms such that the union of all the images is just . The topology where this is the definition of a cover can be called , because it has the property that given any open cover and choice of 1 point in , that point will be in some of the cover.

This is part of a family of topologies, where only allows those covers with the property that given any choice of points in , some open set of the cover contains them all. These conditions, clearly, get increasingly restrictive, so we have a sequence of inclusions (a “filtration”):

Now, with respect to any given one of these topologies , we have the usual situation relating sheaves and presheaves.  Sheaves are defined relative to a given topology (i.e. a notion of cover).  A presheaf on  is just a contravariant functor from (in this case valued in spaces); a sheaf is one which satisfies a descent condition (I’ve discussed this before, for instance here, when I was running the Stacks Seminar at UWO).  The point of a descent condition, for a given topology is that if we can take the values of a functor “locally” – on the various objects of a cover for – and “glue” them to find the value for itself.  In particular, given a cover for , and a cover, there’s a diagram consisting of the inclusions of all the double-overlaps of sets in the cover into the original sets.  Then the descent condition for sheaves of spaces is that

The general fact is that there’s a reflective inclusion of sheaves into presheaves (see some discussion about reflective inclusions, also in an earlier post).  Any sheaf is a contravariant functor – this is the inclusion of into $latex PSh( \mathcal{E} )$.  The reflection has a left adjoint, sheafification, which takes any presheaf in to a sheaf which is the “best approximation” to it.  It’s the fact this is an adjoint which makes the inclusion “reflective”, and provides the sense in which the sheafification is an approximation to the original functor.

The way sheafification works can be worked out from the fact that it’s an adjoint to the inclusion, but it also has a fairly concrete description.  Given any one of the topologies ,  we have a whole collection of special diagrams, such as:

(using the usual notation where is the intersection of two sets in a cover, and the maps here are the inclusions of that intersection).  This and the various other diagrams involving these inclusions are special, given the topology .  The descent condition for a sheaf says that if we take the image of this diagram:

then we can “glue together” the objects and on the overlap to get one on the union.  That is, is a sheaf if is a colimit of the diagram above (intuitively, by “gluing on the overlap”).  In a presheaf, it would come equipped with some maps into the and : in a sheaf, this object and the maps satisfy some universal property.  Sheafification takes a presheaf to a sheaf which does this, essentially by taking all these colimits.  More accurately, since these sheaves are valued in spaces, what we really want are homotopy sheaves, where we can replace “colimit” with “homotopy colimit” in the above – which satisfies a universal property only up to homotopy, and which has a slightly weaker notion of “gluing”.   This (homotopy) sheaf is called because it depends on the topology which we were using to get the class of special diagrams.

One way to think about is that we take the restriction to manifolds which are made by pasting together at most open balls.  Then, knowing only this part of the functor , we extend it back to all manifolds by a Kan extension (this is the technical sense in which it’s a “best approximation”).

Now the point of all this is that we’re building a tower of functors that are “approximately” like , agreeing on ever-more-complicated manifolds, which in our motivating example is .  Whichever functor we use, we get a tower of functors connected by natural transformations:

This happens because we had that chain of inclusions of the topologies .  Now the idea is that if we start with a reasonably nice functor (like for example), then is just the limit of this diagram.  That is, it’s the universal thing which has a map into each commuting with all these connecting maps in the tower.  The tower of approximations – along with its limit (as a diagram in the category of functors) – is what Goodwillie called the “Taylor tower” for .  Then we say the functor is analytic if it’s just (up to homotopy!) the limit of this tower.

By analogy, think of an inclusion of a vector space with inner product into another such space which has higher dimension.  Then there’s an orthogonal projection onto the smaller space, which is an adjoint (as a map of inner product spaces) to the inclusion – so these are like our reflective inclusions.  So the smaller space can “reflect” the bigger one, while not being able to capture anything in the orthogonal complement.  Now suppose we have a tower of inclusions , where each space is of higher dimension, such that each of the is included into in a way that agrees with their maps to each other.  Then given a vector , we can take a sequence of approximations in the spaces.  If was “nice” to begin with, this series of approximations will eventually at least converge to it – but it may be that our tower of spaces doesn’t let us approximate every in this way.

That’s precisely what one does in calculus with Taylor series: we have a big vector space of smooth functions, and a tower of spaces we use to approximate.  These are polynomial functions of different degrees: first linear, then quadratic, and so forth.  The approximations to a function are orthogonal projections onto these smaller spaces.  The sequence of approximations, or rather its limit (as a sequence in the inner product space ), is just what we mean by a “Taylor series for “.  If is analytic in the first place, then this sequence will converge to it.

The same sort of phenomenon is happening with the Goodwillie calculus for functors: our tower of sheafifications of some functor are just “projections” onto smaller categories (of sheaves) inside the category of all contravariant functors.  (Actually, “reflections”, via the reflective inclusions of the sheaf categories for each of the topologies ).  The Taylor Tower for this functor is just like the Taylor series approximating a function.  Indeed, this analogy is fairly close, since the topologies will give approximations of which are in some sense based on points (so-called -excisive functors, which in our terminology here are sheaves in these topologies).  Likewise, a degree- polynomial approximation approximates a smooth function, in general in a way that can be made to agree at points.

Finally, I’ll point out that I mentioned that the Goodwillie calculus is actually more general than this, and applies not only to spaces but to spectra. The point is that the functor defines a kind of generalized cohomology theory – the cohomology groups for are the . So the point is, functors satisfying the axioms of a generalized cohomology theory are represented by spectra, whereas here is a special case that happens to be a space.

Lots of geometric problems can be thought of as classified by this sort of functor – if , the classifying space of a group, and we drop the requirement that the map be an immersion, then we’re looking at the functor that gives the moduli space of -connections on each .  The point is that the Goodwillie calculus gives a sense in which we can understand such functors by simpler approximations to them.

 

Dan Christensen on Diffeological Spaces and Homotopy Theory

So Dan Christensen, who used to be my supervisor while I was a postdoc at the University of Western Ontario, came to Lisbon last week and gave a talk about a topic I remember hearing about while I was there.  This is the category of diffeological spaces as a setting for homotopy theory.  Just to make things scan more nicely, I’m going to say “smooth space” for “diffeological space” here, although this term is in fact ambiguous (see Andrew Stacey’s “Comparative Smootheology” for lots of details about options).  There’s a lot of information about in Patrick Iglesias-Zimmour’s draft-of-a-book.

Motivation

The point of the category , initially, is that it extends the category of manifolds while having some nicer properties.  Thus, while all manifolds are smooth spaces, there are others, which allow to be closed under various operations.  These would include taking limits and colimits: for instance, any subset of a smooth space becomes a smooth space, and any quotient of a smooth space by an equivalence relation is a smooth space.  Then too, has exponentials (that is, if and are smooth spaces, so is ).

So, for instance, this is a good context for constructing loop spaces: a manifold is a smooth space, and so is its loop space , the space of all maps of the circle into .  This becomes important for talking about things like higher cohomology, gerbes, etc.  When starting with the category of manifolds, doing this requires you to go off and define infinite dimensional manifolds before can even be defined.  Likewise, the irrational torus is hard to talk about as a manifold: you take a torus, thought of as .  Then take a direction in with irrational slope, and identify any two points which are translates of each other in along the direction of this line.  The orbit of any point is then dense in the torus, so this is a very nasty space, certainly not a manifold.  But it’s a perfectly good smooth space.

Well, these examples motivate the kinds of things these nice categorical properties allow us to do, but wouldn’t deserve to be called a category of “smooth spaces” (Souriau’s original name for them) if they didn’t allow a notion of smooth maps, which is the basis for most of what we do with manifolds: smooth paths, derivatives of curves, vector fields, differential forms, smooth cohomology, smooth bundles, and the rest of the apparatus of differential geometry.  As with manifolds, this notion of smooth map ought to get along with the usual notion for in some sense.

Smooth Spaces

Thus, a smooth (i.e. diffeological) space consists of:

• A set (of “points”)
• A set (of “plots”) for every n and open such that:

1. All constant maps are plots
2. If is a plot, and is a smooth map, is a plot
3. If is an open cover of , and is a map, whose restrictions are all plots, so is

A smooth map between smooth spaces is one that gets along with all this structure (i.e. the composite with every plot is also a plot).

These conditions mean that smooth maps agree with the usual notion in , and we can glue together smooth spaces to produce new ones.  A manifold becomes a smooth space by taking all the usual smooth maps to be plots: it’s a full subcategory (we introduce new objects which aren’t manifolds, but no new morphisms between manifolds).  A choice of a set of plots for some space is a “diffeology”: there can, of course, be many different diffeologies on a given space.

So, in particular, diffeologies can encode a little more than the charts of a manifold.  Just for one example, a diffeology can have “stop signs”, as Dan put it – points with the property that any smooth map from which passes through them must stop at that point (have derivative zero – or higher derivatives, if you like).  Along the same lines, there’s a nonstandard diffeology on itself with the property that any smooth map from this into a manifold must have all derivatives zero at the endpoints.  This is a better object for defining smooth fundamental groups: you can concatenate these paths at will and they’re guaranteed to be smooth.

As a Quasitopos

An important fact about these smooth spaces is that they are concrete sheaves (i.e. sheaves with underlying sets) on the concrete site (i.e. a Grothendieck site where objects have underlying sets) whose objects are the .  This implies many nice things about the category .  One is that it’s a quasitopos.  This is almost the same as a topos (in particular, it has limits, colimits, etc. as described above), but where a topos has a “subobject classifier”, a quasitopos has a weak subobject classifier (which, perhaps confusingly, is “weak” because it only classifies the strong subobjects).

So remember that a subobject classifier is an object with a map from the terminal object, so that any monomorphism (subobject) is the pullback of along some map (the classifying map).  In the topos of sets, this is just the inclusion of a one-element set into a two-element set : the classifying map for a subset sends everything in (i.e. in the image of the inclusion map) to , and everything else to .  (That is, it’s the characteristic function.)  So pulling back

Any topos has one of these – in particular the topos of sheaves on the diffeological site has one.  But consists of the concrete sheaves, not all sheaves.  The subobject classifier of the topos won’t be concrete – but it does have a “concretification”, which turns out to be the weak subobject classifier.  The subobjects of a smooth space which it classifies (i.e. for which there’s a classifying map as above) are exactly the subsets equipped with the subspace diffeology.  (Which is defined in the obvious way: the plots are the plots of which land in ).

We’ll come back to this quasitopos shortly.  The main point is that Dan and his graduate student, Enxin Wu, have been trying to define a different kind of structure on .  We know it’s good for doing differential geometry.  The hope is that it’s also good for doing homotopy theory.

As a Model Category

The basic idea here is pretty well supported: naively, one can do a lot of the things done in homotopy theory in : to start with, one can define the “smooth homotopy groups” of a pointed space.  It’s a theorem by Dan and Enxin that several possible ways of doing this are equivalent.  But, for example, Iglesias-Zimmour defines them inductively, so that is the set of path-components of , and is defined recursively using loop spaces, mentioned above.  The point is that this all works in much as for topological spaces.

In particular, there are analogs for the for standard theorems like the long exact sequence of homotopy groups for a bundle.  Of course, you have to define “bundle” in – it’s a smooth surjective map , but saying a diffeological bundle is “locally trivial” doesn’t mean “over open neighborhoods”, but “under pullback along any plot”.  (Either of these converts a bundle over a whole space into a bundle over part of , where things are easy to define).

Less naively, the kind of category where homotopy theory works is a model category (see also here).  So the project Dan and Enxin have been working on is to give this sort of structure.  While there are technicalities behind those links, the essential point is that this means you have a closed category (i.e. with all limits and colimits, which does), on which you’ve defined three classes of morphisms: fibrations, cofibrations, and weak equivalences.  These are supposed to abstract the properties of maps in the homotopy theory of topological spaces – in that case weak equivalences being maps that induce isomorphisms of homotopy groups, the other two being defined by having some lifting properties (i.e. you can lift a homotopy, such as a path, along a fibration).

So to abstract the situation in , these classes have to satisfy some axioms (including an abstract form of the lifting properties).  There are slightly different formulations, but for instance, the “2 of 3″ axiom says that if two of , latex $g$ and are weak equivalences, so is the third.  Or, again, there should be a factorization for any morphism into a fibration and an acyclic cofibration (i.e. one which is also a weak equivalence), and also vice versa (that is, moving the adjective “acyclic” to the fibration).  Defining some classes of maps isn’t hard, but it tends to be that proving they satisfy all the axioms IS hard.

Supposing you could do it, though, you have things like the homotopy category (where you formally allow all weak equivalences to have inverses), derived functors(which come from a situation where homotopy theory is “modelled” by categories of chain complexes), and various other fairly powerful tools.  Doing this in would make it possible to use these things in a setting that supports differential geometry.  In particular, you’d have a lot of high-powered machinery that you could apply to prove things about manifolds, even though it doesn’t work in the category itself – only in the larger setting .

Dan and Enxin are still working on nailing down some of the proofs, but it appears to be working.  Their strategy is based on the principle that, for purposes of homotopy, topological spaces act like simplicial complexes.  So they define an affine “simplex”, .  These aren’t literally simplexes: they’re affine planes, which we understand as smooth spaces – with the subspace diffeology from .  But they behave like simplexes: there are face and degeneracy maps for them, and the like.  They form a “cosimplicial object”, which we can think of as a functor , where is the simplex category).

Then the point is one can look at, for a smooth space , the smooth singular simplicial set : it’s a simplicial set where the sets are sets of smooth maps from the affine simplex into .  Likewise, for a simplicial set , there’s a smooth space, the “geometric realization” .  These give two functors and , which are adjoints ( is the left adjoint).  And then, weak equivalences and fibrations being defined in simplicial sets (w.e. are homotopy equivalences of the realization in , and fibrations are “Kan fibrations”), you can just pull the definition back to : a smooth map is a w.e. if its image under is one.  The cofibrations get indirectly defined via the lifting properties they need to have relative to the other two classes.

So it’s still not completely settled that this definition actually gives a model category structure, but it’s pretty close.  Certainly, some things are known.  For instance, Enxin Wu showed that if you have a fibrant object (i.e. one where the unique map to the terminal object is a fibration – these are generally the “good” objects to define homotopy groups on), then the smooth homotopy groups agree with the simplicial ones for .  This implies that for these objects, the weak equivalences are exactly the smooth maps that give isomorphisms for homotopy groups.  And so forth.  But notice that even some fairly nice objects aren’t fibrant: two lines glued together at a point isn’t, for instance.

There are various further results.  One, a consquences of a result Enxin proved, is that all manifolds are fibrant objects, where these nice properties apply.  It’s interesting that this comes from the fact that, in , every (connected) manifold is a homogeneous space.  These are quotients of smooth groups, – the space is a space of cosets, and is understood to be the stabilizer of the point.  Usually one thinks of homogenous spaces as fairly rigid things: the Euclidean plane, say, where is the whole Euclidean group, and the rotations; or a sphere, where is all n-dimensional rotations, and the ones that fix some point on the sphere.  (Actually, this gives a projective plane, since opposite points on the sphere get identified.  But you get the idea).  But that’s for Lie groups.  The point is that , the space of diffeomorphisms from to itself, is a perfectly good smooth group.  Then the subgroup of diffeomorphisms that fix any point is a fine smooth subgroup, and is a homogeneous space in .  But that’s just , with acting transitively on it – any point can be taken anywhere on .

Cohesive Infinity-Toposes

One further thing I’d mention here is related to a related but more abstract approach to the question of how to incorporate homotopy-theoretic tools with a setting that supports differential geometry.  This is the notion of a cohesive topos, and more generally of a cohesive infinity-topos.  Urs Schreiber has advocated for this approach, for instance.  It doesn’t really conflict with the kind of thing Dan was talking about, but it gives a setting for it with lot of abstract machinery.  I won’t try to explain the details (which anyway I’m not familiar with), but just enough to suggest how the two seem to me to fit together, after discussing it a bit with Dan.

The idea of a cohesive topos seems to start with Bill Lawvere, and it’s supposed to characterize something about those categories which are really “categories of spaces” the way is.  Intuitively, spaces consist of “points”, which are held together in lumps we could call “pieces”.  Hence “cohesion”: the points of a typical space cohere together, rather than being a dust of separate elements.  When that happens, in a discrete space, we just say that each piece happens to have just one point in it – but a priori we distinguish the two ideas.  So we might normally say that has an “underlying set” functor , and its left adjoint, the “discrete space” functor (left adjoint since set maps from are the same as continuous maps from – it’s easy for maps out of to be continuous, since every subset is open).

In fact, any topos of sheaves on some site has a pair of functors like this (where becomes , the “set of global sections” functor), essentially because is the topos of sheaves on a single point, and there’s a terminal map from any site into the point.  So this adjoint pair is the “terminal geometric morphism” into .

But this omits there are a couple of other things that apply to : has a right adjoint, , where has only and as its open sets.  In , all the points are “stuck together” in one piece.  On the other hand, itself has a left adjoint, , which gives the set of connected components of a space.  is another kind of “underlying set” of a space.  So we call a topos “cohesive” when the terminal geometric morphism extends to a chain of four adjoint functors in just this way, which satisfy a few properties that characterize what’s happening here.  (We can talk about “cohesive sites”, where this happens.)

Now isn’t exactly a category of sheaves on a site: it’s the category of concrete sheaves on a (concrete) site.  There is a cohesive topos of all sheaves on the diffeological site.  (What’s more, it’s known to have a model category structure).  But now, it’s a fact that any cohesive topos has a subcategory of concrete objects (ones where the canonical unit map is mono: roughly, we can characterize the morphisms of by what they do to its points).  This category is always a quasitopos (and it’s a reflective subcategory of : see the previous post for some comments about reflective subcategories if interested…)  This is where fits in here.  Diffeologies define a “cohesion” just as topologies do: points are in the same “piece” if there’s some plot from a connected part of that lands on both.  Why is only a quasitopos?  Because in general, the subobject classifier in isn’t concrete – but it will have a “concretification”, which is the weak subobject classifier I mentioned above.

Where the “infinity” part of “infinity-topos” comes in is the connection to homotopy theory.  Here, we replace the topos with the infinity-topos of infinity-groupoids.  Then the “underlying” functor captures not just the set of points of a space , but its whole fundamental infinity-groupoid.  Its objects are points of , its morphisms are paths, 2-morphisms are homotopies of paths, and so on.  All the homotopy groups of live here.  So a cohesive inifinity-topos is defined much like above, but with playing the role of , and with that functor replaced by , something which, implicitly, gives all the homotopy groups of .  We might look for cohesive infinity-toposes to be given by the (infinity)-categories of simplicial sheaves on cohesive sites.

This raises a point Dan made in his talk over the diffeological site , we can talk about a cube of different structures that live over it, starting with presheaves: .  We can add different modifiers to this: the sheaf condition; the adjective “concrete”; the adjective “simplicial”.  Various combinations of these adjectives (e.g. simplicial presheaves) are known to have a model structure.  is the case where we have concrete sheaves on .  So far, it hasn’t been proved, but it looks like it shortly will be, that this has a model structure.  This is a particularly nice one, because these things really do seem a lot like spaces: they’re just sets with some easy-to-define and well-behaved (that’s what the sheaf condition does) structure on them, and they include all the examples a differential geometer requires, the manifolds.

 

Relativity of Localization

One talk at the workshop was nominally a school talk by Laurent Freidel, but it’s interesting and distinctive enough in its own right that I wanted to consider it by itself.  It was based on this paper on the “Principle of Relative Locality”. This isn’t so much a new theory, as an exposition of what ought to happen when one looks at a particular limit of any putative theory that has both quantum field theory and gravity as (different) limits of it. This leads through some ideas, such as curved momentum space, which have been kicking around for a while. The end result is a way of accounting for apparently non-local interactions of particles, by saying that while the particles themselves “see” the interactions as local, distant observers might not.

Whereas Einstein’s gravity describes a regime where Newton’s gravitational constant is important but Planck’s constant is negligible, and (special-relativistic) quantum field theory assumes significant but not.  Both of these assume there is a special velocity scale, given by the speed of light , whereas classical mechanics assumes that all three can be neglected (i.e. and are zero, and is infinite).   The guiding assumption is that these are all approximations to some more fundamental theory, called “quantum gravity” just because it accepts that both and (as well as ) are significant in calculating physical effects.  So GR and QFT incorporate two of the three constants each, and classical mechanics incorporates neither.  The “principle of relative locality” arises when we consider a slightly different approximation to this underlying theory.

This approximation works with a regime where and are each negligible, but the ratio is not – this being related to the Planck mass .  The point is that this is an approximation with no special length scale (“Planck length”), but instead a special energy scale (“Planck mass”) which has to be preserved.   Since energy and momentum are different parts of a single 4-vector, this is also a momentum scale; we expect to see some kind of deformation of momentum space, at least for momenta that are bigger than this scale.  The existence of this scale turns out to mean that momenta don’t add linearly – at least, not unless they’re very small compared to the Planck scale.

So what is “Relative Locality”?  In the paper linked above, it’s stated like so:

Physics takes place in phase space and there is no invariant global projection that gives a description of processes in spacetime.  From their measurements local observers can construct descriptions of particles moving and interacting in a spacetime, but different observers construct different spacetimes, which are observer-dependent slices of phase space.

Motivation

This arises from taking the basic insight of general relativity – the requirement that physical principles should be invariant under coordinate transformations (i.e. diffeomorphisms) – and extend it so that instead of applying just to spacetime, it applies to the whole of phase space.  Phase space (which, in this limit where , replaces the Hilbert space of a truly quantum theory) is the space of position-momentum configurations (of things small enough to treat as point-like, in a given fixed approximation).  Having no means we don’t need to worry about any dynamical curvature of “spacetime” (which doesn’t exist), and having no Planck length means we can blithely treat phase space as a manifold with coordinates valued in the real line (which has no special scale).  Yet, having a special mass/momentum scale says we should see some purely combined “quantum gravity” effects show up.

The physical idea is that phase space is an accurate description of what we can see and measure locally.  Observers (whom we assume small enough to be considered point-like) can measure their own proper time (they “have a clock”) and can detect momenta (by letting things collide with them and measuring the energy transferred locally and its direction).  That is, we “see colors and angles” (i.e. photon energies and differences of direction).  Beyond this, one shouldn’t impose any particular theory of what momenta do: we can observe the momenta of separate objects and see what results when they interact and deduce rules from that.  As an extension of standard physics, this model is pretty conservative.  Now, conventionally, phase space would be the cotangent bundle of spacetime .  This model is based on the assumption that objects can be at any point, and wherever they are, their space of possible momenta is a vector space.  Being a bundle, with a global projection onto (taking to ), is exactly what this principle says doesn’t necessarily obtain.  We still assume that phase space will be some symplectic manifold.   But we don’t assume a priori that momentum coordinates give a projection whose fibres happen to be vector spaces, as in a cotangent bundle.

Now, a symplectic manifold  still looks locally like a cotangent bundle (Darboux’s theorem). So even if there is no universal “spacetime”, each observer can still locally construct a version of “spacetime”  by slicing up phase space into position and momentum coordinates.  One can, by brute force, extend the spacetime coordinates quite far, to distant points in phase space.  This is roughly analogous to how, in special relativity, each observer can put their own coordinates on spacetime and arrive at different notions of simultaneity.  In general relativity, there are issues with trying to extend this concept globally, but it can be done under some conditions, giving the idea of “space-like slices” of spacetime.  In the same way, we can construct “spacetime-like slices” of phase space.

Geometrizing Algebra

Now, if phase space is a cotangent bundle, momenta can be added (the fibres of the bundle are vector spaces).  Some more recent ideas about “quasi-Hamiltonian spaces” (initially introduced by Alekseev, Malkin and Meinrenken) conceive of momenta as “group-valued” – rather than taking values in the dual of some Lie algebra (the way, classically, momenta are dual to velocities, which live in the Lie algebra of infinitesimal translations).  For small momenta, these are hard to distinguish, so even group-valued momenta might look linear, but the premise is that we ought to discover this by experiment, not assumption.  We certainly can detect “zero momentum” and for physical reasons can say that given two things with two momenta , there’s a way of combining them into a combined momentum .  Think of doing this physically – transfer all momentum from one particle to another, as seen by a given observer.  Since the same momentum at the observer’s position can be either coming in or going out, this operation has a “negative” with .

We do have a space of momenta at any given observer’s location – the total of all momenta that can be observed there, and this space now has some algebraic structure.  But we have no reason to assume up front that is either commutative or associative (let alone that it makes momentum space at a given observer’s location into a vector space).  One can interpret this algebraic structure as giving some geometry.  The commutator for gives a metric on momentum space.  This is a bilinear form which is implicitly defined by the “norm” that assigns a kinetic energy to a particle with a given momentum. The associator given by , infinitesimally near where this makes sense, gives a connection.  This defines a “parallel transport” of a finite momentum in the direction of a momentum by saying infinitesimally what happens when adding to .

Various additional physical assumptions – like the momentum-space “duals” of the equivalence principle (that the combination of momenta works the same way for all kinds of matter regardless of charge), or the strong equivalence principle (that inertial mass and rest mass energy per the relation are the same) and so forth can narrow down the geometry of this metric and connection.  Typically we’ll find that it needs to be Lorentzian.  With strong enough symmetry assumptions, it must be flat, so that momentum space is a vector space after all – but even with fairly strong assumptions, as with general relativity, there’s still room for this “empty space” to have some intrinsic curvature, in the form of a momentum-space “dual cosmological constant”, which can be positive (so momentum space is closed like a sphere), zero (the vector space case we usually assume) or negative (so momentum space is hyperbolic).

This geometrization of what had been algebraic is somewhat analogous to what happened with velocities (i.e. vectors in spacetime)) when the theory of special relativity came along.  Insisting that the “invariant” scale be the same in every reference system meant that the addition of velocities ceased to be linear.  At least, it did if you assume that adding velocities has an interpretation along the lines of: “first, from rest, add velocity v to your motion; then, from that reference frame, add velocity w”.  While adding spacetime vectors still worked the same way, one had to rephrase this rule if we think of adding velocities as observed within a given reference frame – this became (scaling so and assuming the velocities are in the same direction).  When velocities are small relative to , this looks roughly like linear addition.  Geometrizing the algebra of momentum space is thought of a little differently, but similar things can be said: we think operationally in terms of combining momenta by some process.  First transfer (group-valued) momentum to a particle, then momentum – the connection on momentum space tells us how to translate these momenta into the “reference frame” of a new observer with momentum shifted relative to the starting point.  Here again, the special momentum scale (which is also a mass scale since a momentum has a corresponding kinetic energy) is a “deformation” parameter – for momenta that are small compared to this scale, things seem to work linearly as usual.

There’s some discussion in the paper which relates this to DSR (either “doubly” or “deformed” special relativity), which is another postulated limit of quantum gravity, a variation of SR with both a special velocity and a special mass/momentum scale, to consider “what SR looks like near the Planck scale”, which treats spacetime as a noncommutative space, and generalizes the Lorentz group to a Hopf algebra which is a deformation of it.  In DSR, the noncommutativity of “position space” is directly related to curvature of momentum space.  In the “relative locality” view, we accept a classical phase space, but not a classical spacetime within it.

Physical Implications

We should understand this scale as telling us where “quantum gravity effects” should start to become visible in particle interactions.  This is a fairly large scale for subatomic particles.  The Planck mass as usually given is about 21 micrograms: small for normal purposes, about the size of a small sand grain, but very large for subatomic particles.  Converting to momentum units with , this is about 6 kg m/s: on the order of the momentum of a kicked soccer ball or so.  For a subatomic particle this is a lot.

This scale does raise a question for many people who first hear this argument, though – that quantum gravity effects should become apparent around the Planck mass/momentum scale, since macro-objects like the aforementioned soccer ball still seem to have linearly-additive momenta.  Laurent explained the problem with this intuition.  For interactions of big, extended, but composite objects like soccer balls, one has to calculate not just one interaction, but all the various interactions of their parts, so the “effective” mass scale where the deformation would be seen becomes where is the number of particles in the soccer ball.  Roughly, the point is that a soccer ball is not a large “thing” for these purposes, but a large conglomeration of small “things”, whose interactions are “fundamental”.  The “effective” mass scale tells us how we would have to alter the physical constants to be able to treat it as a “thing”.  (This is somewhat related to the question of “effective actions” and renormalization, though these are a bit more complicated.)

There are a number of possible experiments suggested in the paper, which Laurent mentioned in the talk.  One involves a kind of “twin paradox” taking place in momentum space.  In “spacetime”, a spaceship travelling a large loop at high velocity will arrive where it started having experienced less time than an observer who remained there (because of the Lorentzian metric) – and a dual phenomenon in momentum space says that particles travelling through loops (also in momentum space) should arrive displaced in space because of the relativity of localization.  This could be observed in particle accelerators where particles make several transits of a loop, since the effect is cumulative.  Another effect could be seen in astronomical observations: if an observer is observing some distant object via photons of different wavelengths (hence momenta), she might “localize” the object differently – that is, the two photons travel at “the same speed” the whole way, but arrive at different times because the observer will interpret the object as being at two different distances for the two photons.

This last one is rather weird, and I had to ask how one would distinguish this effect from a variable speed of light (predicted by certain other ideas about quantum gravity).  How to distinguish such effects seems to be not quite worked out yet, but at least this is an indication that there are new, experimentally detectible, effects predicted by this “relative locality” principle.  As Laurent emphasized, once we’ve noticed that not accepting this principle means making an a priori assumption about the geometry of momentum space (even if only in some particular approximation, or limit, of a true theory of quantum gravity), we’re pretty much obliged to stop making that assumption and do the experiments.  Finding our assumptions were right would simply be revealing which momentum space geometry actually obtains in the approximation we’re studying.

A final note about the physical interpretation: this “relative locality” principle can be discovered by looking (in the relevant limit) at a Lagrangian for free particles, with interactions described in terms of momenta.  It so happens that one can describe this without referencing a “real” spacetime: the part of the action that allows particles to interact when “close” only needs coordinate functions, which can certainly exist here, but are an observer-dependent construct.  The conservation of (non-linear) momenta is specified via a Lagrange multiplier.  The whole Lagrangian formalism for the mechanics of colliding particles works without reference to spacetime.  Now, even though all the interactions (specified by the conservation of momentum terms) happen “at one location”, in that there will be an observer who sees them happening in the momentum space of her own location.  But an observer at a different point may disagree about whether the interaction was local – i.e. happened at a single point in spacetime.  Thus “relativity of localization”.

Again, this is no more bizarre (mathematically) than the fact that distant, relatively moving, observers in special relativity might disagree about simultaneity, whether two events happened at the same time.  They have their own coordinates on spacetime, and transferring between them mixes space coordinates and time coordinates, so they’ll disagree whether the time-coordinate values of two events are the same.  Similarly, in this phase-space picture, two different observers each have a coordinate system for splitting phase space into “spacetime” and “energy-momentum” coordinates, but switching between them may mix these two pieces.  Thus, the two observers will disagree about whether the spacetime-coordinate values for the different interacting particles are the same.  And so, one observer says the interaction is “local in spacetime”, and the other says it’s not.  The point is that it’s local for the particles themselves (thinking of them as observers).  All that’s going on here is the not-very-astonishing fact that in the conventional picture, we have no problem with interactions being nonlocal in momentum space (particles with very different momenta can interact as long as they collide with each other)… combined with the inability to globally and invariantly distinguish position and momentum coordinates.

What this means, philosophically, can be debated, but it does offer some plausibility to the claim that space and time are auxiliary, conceptual additions to what we actually experience, which just account for the relations between bits of matter.  These concepts can be dispensed with even where we have a classical-looking phase space rather than Hilbert space (where, presumably, this is even more true).

…

Edit: On a totally unrelated note, I just noticed this post by Alex Hoffnung over at the n-Category Cafe which gives a lot of detail on issues relating to spans in bicategories that I had begun to think more about recently in relation to developing a higher-gauge-theoretic version of the construction I described for ETQFT. In particular, I’d been thinking about how the 2-group analog of restriction and induction for representations realizes the various kinds of duality properties, where we have adjunctions, biadjunctions, and so forth, in which units and counits of the various adjunctions have further duality. This observation seems to be due to Jim Dolan, as far as I can see from a brief note in HDA II. In that case, it’s really talking about the star-structure of the span (tri)category, but looking at the discussion Alex gives suggests to me that this theme shows up throughout this subject. I’ll have to take a closer look at the draft paper he linked to and see if there’s more to say…

 

HGTQGR – Part IIIb (Workshop)

As usual, this write-up process has been taking a while since life does intrude into blogging for some reason.  In this case, because for a little less than a week, my wife and I have been on our honeymoon, which was delayed by our moving to Lisbon.  We went to the Azores, or rather to São Miguel, the largest of the nine islands.  We had a good time, roughly like so:

Now that we’re back, I’ll attempt to wrap up with the summaries of things discussed at the workshop on Higher Gauge Theory, TQFT, and Quantum Gravity.  In the previous post I described talks which I roughly gathered under TQFT and Higher Gauge Theory, but the latter really ramifies out in a few different ways.  As began to be clear before, higher bundles are classified by higher cohomology of manifolds, and so are gerbes – so in fact these are two slightly different ways of talking about the same thing.  I also remarked, in the summary of Konrad Waldorf’s talk, the idea that the theory of gerbes on a manifold is equivalent to ordinary gauge theory on its loop space – which is one way to make explicit the idea that categorification “raises dimension”, in this case from parallel transport of points to that of 1-dimensional loops.  Next we’ll expand on that theme, and then finally reach the “Quantum Gravity” part, and draw the connection between this and higher gauge theory toward the end.

Gerbes and Cohomology

The very first workshop speaker, in fact, was Paolo Aschieri, who has done a lot of work relating noncommutative geometry and gravity.  In this case, though, he was talking about noncommutative gerbes, and specifically referred to this work with some of the other speakers.  To be clear, this isn’t about gerbes with noncommutative group , but about gerbes on noncommutative spaces.  To begin with, it’s useful to express gerbes in the usual sense in the right language.  In particular, he explain what a gerbe on a manifold is in concrete terms, giving Hitchin’s definition (viz).  A gerbe can be described as “a cohomology class” but it’s more concrete to present it as:

• a collection of line bundles associated with double overlaps .  Note this gets an algebraic structure (multiplication of bundles is pointwise , with an inverse given by the dual, , so we can require…
• , which helps define…
• transition functions on triple overlaps , which are sections of .  If this product is trivial, there’d be a 1-cocycle condition here, but we only insist on the 2-cocycle condition…
• 

This is a -gerbe on a commutative space.  The point is that one can make a similar definition for a noncommutative space.  If the space is associated with the algebra of smooth functions, then a line bundle is a module for , so if is noncommutative (thought of as a “space” ), a “bundle over is just defined to be an -module.  One also has to define an appropriate “covariant derivative” operator on this module, and the -product must be defined as well, and will be noncommutative (we can think of it as a deformation of the above).  The transition functions are sections: that is, elements of the modules in question.  his means we can describe a gerbe in terms of a big stack of modules, with a chosen algebraic structure, together with some elements.  The idea then is that gerbes can give an interpretation of cohomology of noncommutative spaces as well as commutative ones.

Mauro Spera spoke about a point of view of gerbes based on “transgressions”.  The essential point is that an -gerbe on a space can be seen as the obstruction to patching together a family of  -gerbes.  Thus, for instance, a 0-gerbe is a -bundle, which is to say a complex line bundle.  As described above, a 1-gerbe can be understood as describing the obstacle to patching together a bunch of line bundles, and the obstacle is the ability to find a cocycle satisfying the requisite conditions.  This obstacle is measured by the cohomology of the space.  Saying we want to patch together -gerbes on the fibre.  He went on to discuss how this manifests in terms of obstructions to string structures on manifolds (already discussed at some length in the post on Hisham Sati’s school talk, so I won’t duplicate here).

A talk by Igor Bakovic, “Stacks, Gerbes and Etale Groupoids”, gave a way of looking at gerbes via stacks (see this for instance).  The organizing principle is the classification of bundles by the space maps into a classifying space – or, to get the category of principal -bundles on, the category , where is the category of sheaves on and is the classifying topos of -sets.  (So we have geometric morphisms between the toposes as the objects.)  Now, to get further into this, we use that is equivalent to the category of Étale spaces over – this is a refinement of the equivalence between bundles and presheaves.  Taking stalks of a presheaf gives a bundle, and taking sections of a bundle gives a presheaf – and these operations are adjoint.

The issue at hand is how to categorify this framework to talk about 2-bundles, and the answer is there’s a 2-adjunction between the 2-category of such things, and , the 2-category of fibred categories over .  (That is, instead of looking at “sheaves of sets”, we look at “sheaves of categories” here.)  The adjunction, again, involves talking stalks one way, and taking sections the other way.  One hard part of this is getting a nice definition of “stalk” for stacks (i.e. for the “sheaves of categories”), and a good part of the talk focused on explaining how to get a nice tractable definition which is (fibre-wise) equivalent to the more natural one.

Bakovic did a bunch of this work with Branislav Jurco, who was also there, and spoke about “Nonabelian Bundle 2-Gerbes“.  The paper behind that link has more details, which I’ve yet to entirely absorb, but the essential point appears to be to extend the description of “bundle gerbes” associated to crossed modules up to 2-crossed modules.  Bundles, with a structure-group , are classified by the cohomology with coefficients in ; and whereas “bundle-gerbes” with a structure-crossed-module can likewise be described by cohomology .  Notice this is a bit different from the description in terms of higher cohomology for a -gerbe, which can be understood as a bundle-gerbe using the shifted crossed module (when is abelian.  The goal here is to generalize this part to nonabelian groups, and also pass up to “bundle 2-gerbes” based on a 2-crossed module, or crossed complex of length 2, as I described previously for Joao Martins’ talk.  This would be classified in terms of cohomology valued in the 2-crossed module.  The point is that one can describe such a thing as a bundle over a fibre product, which (I think – I’m not so clear on this part) deals with the same structure of overlaps as the higher cohomology in the other way of describing things.

Finally,  a talk that’s a little harder to classify than most, but which I’ve put here with things somewhat related to string theory, was Alexander Kahle‘s on “T-Duality and Differential K-Theory”, based on work with Alessandro Valentino.  This uses the idea of the differential refinement of cohomology theories – in this case, K-theory, which is a generalized cohomology theory, which is to say that K-theory satisfies the Eilenberg-Steenrod axioms (with the dimension axiom relaxed, hence “generalized”).  Cohomology theories, including generalized ones, can have differential refinements, which pass from giving topological to geometrical information about a space.  So, while K-theory assigns to a space the Grothendieck ring of the category of vector bundles over it, the differential refinement of K-theory does the same with the category of vector bundles with connection.  This captures both local and global structures, which turns out to be necessary to describe fields in string theory – specifically, Ramond-Ramond fields.  The point of this talk was to describe what happens to these fields under T-duality.  This is a kind of duality in string theory between a theory with large strings and small strings.  The talk describes how this works, where we have a manifold with fibres at each point with fibres strings of radius and with radius .  There’s a correspondence space , which has projection maps down into the two situations.  Fields, being forms on such a fibration, can be “transferred” through this correspondence space by a “pull-back and push-forward” (with, in the middle, a wedge with a form that mixes the two directions, ).  But to be physically the right kind of field, these “forms” actually need to be representing cohomology classes in the differential refinement of K-theory.

Quantum Gravity etc.

Now, part of the point of this workshop was to try to build, or anyway maintain, some bridges between the kind of work in geometry and topology which I’ve been describing and the world of physics.  There are some particular versions of physical theories where these ideas have come up.  I’ve already touched on string theory along the way (there weren’t many talks about it from a physicist’s point of view), so this will mostly be about a different sort of approach.

Benjamin Bahr gave a talk outlining this approach for our mathematician-heavy audience, with his talk on “Spin Foam Operators” (see also for instance this paper).  The point is that one approach to quantum gravity has a theory whose “kinematics” (the description of the state of a system at a given time) is described by “spin networks” (based on gauge theory), as described back in the pre-school post.  These span a Hilbert space, so the “dynamical” issue of such models is how to get operators between Hilbert spaces from “foams” that interpolate between such networks – that is, what kind of extra data they might need, and how to assign amplitudes to faces and edges etc. to define an operator, which (assuming a “local” theory where distant parts of the foam affect the result independently) will be of the form:

where is a particular complex (foam), is a way of assigning irreps to faces of the foam, and is the assignment of intertwiners to edges.  Later on, one can take a discrete version of a path integral by summing over all these .  Here we have a product over faces and one over vertices, with an amplitude assigned (somehow – this is the issue) to faces.  The trace is over all the representation spaces assigned to the edges that are incident to a vertex (this is essentially the only consistent way to assign an amplitude to a vertex).  If we also consider spacetimes with boundary, we need some amplitudes at the boundary edges, as well.  A big part of the work with such models is finding such amplitudes that meet some nice conditions.

Some of these conditions are inherently necessary – to ensure the theory is invariant under gauge transformations, or (formally) changing orientations of faces.  Others are considered optional, though to me “functoriality” (that the way of deriving operators respects the gluing-together of foams) seems unavoidable – it imposes that the boundary amplitudes have to be found from the in one specific way.  Some other nice conditions might be: that depends only on the topology of (which demands that the operators be projections); that is invariant under subdivision of the foam (which implies the amplitudes have to be ).

Assuming all these means the only choice is exactly which sub-projection is of the projection onto the gauge-invariant part of the representation space for the faces attached to edge .  The rest of the talk discussed this, including some examples (models for BF-theory, the Barrett-Crane model and the more recent EPRL/FK model), and finished up by discussing issues about getting a nice continuum limit by way of “coarse graining”.

On a related subject, Bianca Dittrich spoke about “Dynamics and Diffeomorphism Symmetry in Discrete Quantum Gravity”, which explained the nature of some of the hard problems with this sort of discrete model of quantum gravity.  She began by asking what sort of models (i.e. which choices of amplitudes) in such discrete models would actually produce a nice continuum theory – since gravity, classically, is described in terms of spacetimes which are continua, and the quantum theory must look like this in some approximation.  The point is to think of these as “coarse-graining” of a very fine (perfect, in the limit) approximation to the continuum by a triangulation with a very short length-scale for the edges.  Coarse graining means discarding some of the edges to get a coarser approximation (perhaps repeatedly).  If the happens to be triangulation-independent, then coarse graining makes no difference to the result, nor does the converse process of refining the triangulation.  So one question is:  if we expect the continuum limit to be diffeomorphism invariant (as is General Relativity), what does this say at the discrete level?  The relation between diffeomorphism invariance and triangulation invariance has been described by Hendryk Pfeiffer, and in the reverse direction by Dittrich et al.

Actually constructing the dynamics for a system like this in a nice way (“canonical dynamics with anomaly-free constraints”) is still a big problem, which Bianca suggested might be approached by this coarse-graining idea.  Now, if a theory is topological (here we get the link to TQFT), such as electromagnetism in 2D, or (linearized) gravity in 3D, coarse graining doesn’t change much.  But otherwise, changing the length scale means changing the action for the continuum limit of the theory.  This is related to renormalization: one starts with a “naive” guess at a theory, then refines it (in this case, by the coarse-graining process), which changes the action for the theory, until arriving at (or approximating to) a fixed point.  Bianca showed an example, which produces a really huge, horrible action full of very complicated terms, which seems rather dissatisfying.  What’s more, she pointed out that, unless the theory is topological, this always produces an action which is non-local – unlike the “naive” discrete theory.  That is, the action can’t be described in terms of a bunch of non-interacting contributions from the field at individual points – instead, it’s some function which couples the field values at distant points (albeit in a way that falls off exponentially as the points get further apart).

In a more specific talk, Aleksandr Mikovic discussed “Finiteness and Semiclassical Limit of EPRL-FK Spin Foam Models”, looking at a particular example of such models which is the (relatively) new-and-improved candidate for quantum gravity mentioned above.  This was a somewhat technical talk, which I didn’t entirely follow, but  roughly, the way he went at this was through the techniques of perturbative QFT.  That is, by looking at the theory in terms of an “effective action”, instead of some path integral over histories with action – which looks like .  Starting with some classical history – a stationary point of the action – the effective action is an integral over small fluctuations around it of .

He commented more on the distinction between the question of triangulation independence (which is crucial for using spin foams to give invariants of manifolds) and the question of whether the theory gives a good quantum theory of gravity – that’s the “semiclassical limit” part.  (In light of the above, this seems to amount to asking if “diffeomorphism invariance” really extends through to the full theory, or is only approximately true, in the limiting case).  Then the “finiteness” part has to do with the question of getting decent asymptotic behaviour for some of those weights mentioned above so as to give a nice effective action (if not necessarily triangulation independence).  So, for instance, in the Ponzano-Regge model (which gives a nice invariant for manifolds), the vertex amplitudes are found by the 6j-symbols of representations.  The asymptotics of the 6j symbols then becomes an issue – Alekandr noted that to get a theory with a nice effective action, those 6j-symbols need to be scaled by a certain factor.  This breaks triangulation independence (hence means we don’t have a good manifold invariant), but gives a physically nicer theory.  In the case of 3D gravity, this is not what we want, but as he said, there isn’t a good a-priori reason to think it can’t give a good theory of 4D gravity.

Now, making a connection between these sorts of models and higher gauge theory, Aristide Baratin spoke about “2-Group Representations for State Sum Models”.  This is a project Baez, Freidel, and Wise, building on work by Crane and Sheppard (see my previous post, where Derek described the geometry of the representation theory for some 2-groups).  The idea is to construct state-sum models where, at the kinematical level, edges are labelled by 2-group representations, faces by intertwiners, and tetrahedra by 2-intertwiners.  (This assumes the foam is a triangulation – there’s a certain amount of back-and-forth in this area between this, and the Poincaré dual picture where we have 4-valent vertices).  He discussed this in a couple of related cases – the Euclidean and Poincaré 2-groups, which are described by crossed modules with base groups or respectively, acting on the abelian group (of automorphisms of the identity) in the obvious way.  Then the analogy of the 6j symbols above, which are assigned to tetrahedra (or dually, vertices in a foam interpolating two kinematical states), are now 10j symbols assigned to 4-simplexes (or dually, vertices in the foam).

One nice thing about this setup is that there’s a good geometric interpretation of the kinematics – irreducible representations of these 2-groups pick out orbits of the action of the relevant on .  These are “mass shells” – radii of spheres in the Euclidean case, or proper length/time values that pick out hyperboloids in the Lorentzian case of .  Assigning these to edges has an obvious geometric meaning (as a proper length of the edge), which thus has a continuous spectrum.  The areas and volumes interpreting the intertwiners and 2-intertwiners start to exhibit more of the discreteness you see in the usual formulation with representations of the groups themselves.  Finally, Aristide pointed out that this model originally arose not from an attempt to make a quantum gravity model, but from looking at Feynman diagrams in flat space (a sort of “quantum flat space” model), which is suggestively interesting, if not really conclusively proving anything.

Finally, Laurent Freidel gave a talk, “Classical Geometry of Spin Network States” which was a way of challenging the idea that these states are exclusively about “quantum geometries”, and tried to give an account of how to interpret them as discrete, but classical.  That is, the quantization of the classical phase space (the cotangent bundle of connections-mod-gauge) involves first a discretization to a spin-network phase space , and then a quantization to get a Hilbert space , and the hard part is the first step.  The point is to see what the classical phase space is, and he describes it as a (symplectic) quotient , which starts by assigning $T^*(SU(2))$ to each edge, then reduced by gauge transformations.  The puzzle is to interpret the states as geometries with some discrete aspect.

The answer is that one thinks of edges as describing (dual) faces, and vertices as describing some polytopes.  For each , there’s a -dimensional “shape space” of convex polytopes with -faces and a given fixed area .  This has a canonical symplectic structure, where lengths and interior angles at an edge are the canonically conjugate variables.  Then the whole phase space describes ways of building geometries by gluing these things (associated to vertices) together at the corresponding faces whenever the two vertices are joined by an edge.  Notice this is a bit strange, since there’s no particular reason the faces being glued will have the same shape: just the same area.  An area-1 pentagon and an area-1 square associated to the same edge could be glued just fine.  Then the classical geometry for one of these configurations is build of a bunch of flat polyhedra (i.e. with a flat metric and connection on them).  Measuring distance across a face in this geometry is a little strange.  Given two points inside adjacent cells, you measure orthogonal distance to the matched faces, and add in the distance between the points you arrive at (orthogonally) – assuming you glued the faces at the centre.  This is a rather ugly-seeming geometry, but it’s symplectically isomorphic to the phase space of spin network states – so it’s these classical geometries that spin-foam QG is a quantization of.  Maybe the ugliness should count against this model of quantum gravity – or maybe my aesthetic sense just needs work.

(Laurent also gave another talk, which was originally scheduled as one of the school talks, but ended up being a very interesting exposition of the principle of “Relativity of Localization”, which is hard to shoehorn into the themes I’ve used here, and was anyway interesting enough that I’ll devote a separate post to it.)

 

HGTQGR Workshop – Part IIa (School)

I’d like to continue describing the talks that made up the HGTQGR workshop, in particular the ones that took place during the school portion of the event.  I’ll save one “school” session, by Laurent Freidel, to discuss with the talks because it seems to more nearly belong there. This leaves five people who gave between two and four lectures each over a period of a few days, all intermingled. Here’s a very rough summary in the order of first appearance:

2D Extended TQFT

Chris Schommer-Pries gave the longest series of talks, about the classification of 2D extended TQFT’s.  A TQFT is a kind of topological invariant for manifolds, which has a sort of “locality” property, in that you can decompose the manifold, compute the invariant on the parts, and find the whole by gluing the pieces back together.  This is expressed by saying it’s a monoidal functor , where the “locality” property is now functoriality property that composition is preserved.  The key thing here is the cobordism category , which has objects (d-1)-dimensional manifolds, and morphisms d-dimensional cobordisms (manifolds with boundary, where the objects are components of the boundary).  Then a closed d-manifold is just a cobordism from $latex\emptyset$ to itself.

Making this into a category is actually a bit nontrivial: gluing bits of smooth manifolds, for instance, won’t necessarily give something smooth.  There are various ways of handling this, such as giving the boundaries “collars”, but Chris’ preferred method is to give boundaries (and, ultimately, corners, etc.) a”halation”.  This word originally means the halo of light around bright things you sometimes see in photos, but in this context, a halation for is an equivalence class of embeddings into neighborhoods .  The equivalence class says two such embeddings into and are equivalent if there’s a compatible refinement into some common that embeds into both and .  The idea is that a halation is a kind of d-dimensional “halo”, or the “germ of a d-manifold” around .  Then gluing compatibly along (d-1)-boundaries with halations ensures that we get smooth d-manifolds.  (One can also extend this setup so that everything in sight is oriented, or has some other such structure on it.)

In any case, an extended TQFT will then mean an n-functor , where is some symmetric monoidal n-category (which is supposed to be similar to ).  Its exact nature is less important than that of , which has:

• 0-Morphisms (i.e. Objects): 0-manifolds (collections of points)
• 1-Morphisms: 1-dimensional cobordisms between 0-manifolds (curves)
• 2-Morphisms: 2-dim cobordisms with corners between 1-Morphisms (surfaces with boundary)
• …
• d-Morphisms: d-dimensional cobordisms between (d-1)-Morphisms (n-manifolds with corners), up to isomorphism

(Note: the distinction between “Bord” and “Cobord” is basically a matter of when a given terminology came in.  “Cobordism” and “Bordism”, unfortunately, mean the same thing, except that “bordism” has become popular more recently, since the “co” makes it sound like it’s the opposite category of something else.  This is kind of regrettable, but that’s what happened.  Sorry.)

The crucial point, is that Chris wanted to classify all such things, and his approach to this is to give a presentation of .  This is based on stuff in his thesis.  The basic idea is to use Morse theory, and its higher-dimensional generalization, Cerf theory.  The idea is that one can put a Morse function  on a cobordism (essentially, a well-behaved “time order” on points) and look at its critical points.  Classifying these tells us what the generators for the category of cobordisms must be: there need to be enough to capture all the most general sorts of critical points.

Cerf theory does something similar, but one dimension up: now we’re talking about “stratified” families of Morse functions.  Again one studies critical points, but, for instance, on a 2-dim surface, there can be 1- and 0-dimensional parts of the set of cricical points.  In general, this gets into the theory of higher-dimensional singularities, catastrophe theory, and so on.  Each extra dimension one adds means looking at how the sets of critical points in the previous dimension can change over “time” (i.e. within some stratified family of Cerf functions).  Where these changes themselves go through critical points, one needs new generators for the various j-morphisms of the cobordism category.  (See some examples of such “catastrophes”, such as folds, cusps, swallowtails, etc. linked from here, say.)  Showing what such singularities can be like in the “generic” situation, and indeed, even defining “generic” in a way that makes sense in any dimension, required some discussion of jet bundles.  These are generalizations of tangent bundles that capture higher derivatives the way tangent bundles capture first-derivatives.  The essential point is that one can find a way to decompose these into a direct sum of parts of various dimensions (capturing where various higher derivatives are zero, say), and these will eventually tell us the dimension of a set of critical points for a Cerf function.

Now, this gives a characterization of what cobordisms can be like – part of the work in the theorem is to show that this is sufficient: that is, given a diagram showing the critical points for some Morse/Cerf function, one needs to be able to find the appropriate generators and piece together the cobordism (possibly a closed manifold) that it came from.  Chris showed how this works – a slightly finicky process involving cutting a diagram of the singular points (with some extra labelling information) into parts, and using a graphical calculus to work out how pasting works – and showed an example reconstruction of a surface this way.  This amounts to a construction of an equivalence between an “abstract” cobordism category given in terms of generators (and relations) which come from Cerf theory, and the concrete one.  The theorem then says that there’s a correspondence between equivalence classes of 2D cobordisms, and certain planar diagrams, up to some local moves.  To show this properly required a digression through some theory of symmetric monoidal bicategories, and what the right notion of equivalence for them is.

This all done, the point is that has a characterization in terms of a universal property, and so any ETQFT amounts to a certain kind of object in (corresponding to the image of the point – the generating object in ).  For instance, in the oriented situation this object needs to be “fully dualizable”: it should have a dual (the point with opposite orientation), and a whole bunch of maps that specify the duality: a cobordism from to nothing (just the “U”-shaped curve), which has a dual – and some 2-D cobordisms which specify that duality, and so on.  Specifying all this dualizability structure amounts to giving the image of all the generators of cobordisms, and determines the functors , and vice versa.

This is a rapid summary of six hours of lectures, of course, so for more precise versions of these statements, you may want to look into Chris’ thesis as linked above.

Homotopy QFT and the Crossed Menagerie

The next series of lectures in the school was Tim Porter’s, about relations between Homotopy Quantum Field Theory (HQFT) and various sort of crossed gizmos.  HQFT is an idea introduced by Vladimir Turaev, (see his paper with Tim here, for an intro, though Turaev also now has a book on the subject).  It’s intended to deal with similar sorts of structures to TQFT, but with various sorts of extra structure.  This structure is related to the “Crossed Menagerie”, on which Tim has written an almost unbelievably extensive bunch of lecture notes, of which a special short version was made for this lecture series that’s a mere 350 pages long.

Anyway, the cobordism category described above is replaced by one Tim called (see above comment about “bord” and “cobord”, which mean the same thing).  Again, this has d-dimensional cobordisms as its morphisms and (d-1)-dimensional manifolds as its objects, but now everything in sight is equipped with a map into a space – almost.  So an object is , and a morphism is a cobordism with a homotopy class of maps which are compatible with the ones at the boundaries.  Then just as a d-TQFT is a representation (i.e. a functor) of into , a -HQFT is a representation of .

The motivating example here is when , the classifying space of a group.  These spaces are fairly complicated when you describe them as built from gluing cells (in homotopy theory, one typically things of spaces as something like CW-complexes: a bunch of cells in various dimensions glued together with face maps etc.), but has the property that its fundamental group is , and all other homotopy groups are trivial (ensuring this part is what makes the cellular decomposition description tricky).

The upshot is that there’s a correspondence between (homotopy classes of) maps (this makes a good alternative definition of the classifying space, though one needs to ).  Since a map from the fundamental group into amounts to a flat principal -bundle, we can say that is a category of manifolds and cobordisms carrying such a bundle.  This gets us into gauge theory.

But we can go beyond and into higher gauge theory (and other sorts of structures) by picking other sorts of .  To begin with, notice that the correspondence above implies that mapping into means that when we take maps up to homotopy, we can only detect the fundamental group of , and not any higher homotopy groups.  We say we can only detect the “homotopy 1-type” of the space.  The “homotopy n-type” of a given space is just the first homotopy groups .  Alternatively, an “n-type” is an equivalence class of spaces which all have the same such groups.  Or, again, an “n-type” is a particular representative of one of these classes where these are the only nonzero homotopy groups.

The point being that if we’re considering maps up to homotopy, we may only be detecting the n-type of (and therefore may as well assume is an n-type in the last sense when it’s convenient).  More precisely, there are “Postnikov functors” which take a space and return the corresponding n-type.  This can be done by gluing in “patches” of higher dimensions to “fill in the holes” which are measured by the higher homotopy groups (in general, the result is infinite dimensional as a cell complex).  Thus, there are embeddings , which get along with the obvious chain

There was a fairly nifty digression here explaining how this is a “coskeleton” of , in that is a right adjoint to the “n-skeleton” functor (which throws away cells above dimension n, not homotopy groups), so that .  To really explain it properly, though I would have to really explain what that is (it refers to maps in the category of simplicial sets, which are another nice model of spaces up to homotopy).  This digression would carry us away from higher gauge theory, which is where I’m going.

One thing to say is that if is d-dimensional, then any HQFT is determined entirely by the d-type of .  Any extra jazz going on in ‘s higher homotopy groups won’t be detected when we’re only mapping a d-dimensional space into it.  So one might as well assume that is just a d-type.

We want to say we can detect a homotopy n-type of a space if, for example, where is an “n-group”.  A handy way to account for this is in terms of a “crossed complex”.  The first nontrivial example of this would be a crossed module, which consists of

• Two groups, and with
• A map and
• An action of on by automorphisms,
• all such that action looks as much like conjugation as possible:
  • (so that is -equivariant)
  • (the “Peiffer identity”)

This definition looks a little funny, but it does characterize “2-groups” in the sense of categories internal to (the definition used elsewhere), by taking to be the group of objects, and the group of automorphisms of the identity of .  In the description of John Huerta’s lectures, I’ll get back to how that works.

The immediate point is that there are a bunch of natural examples of crossed modules.  For instance: from normal subgroups, where is inclusion and the action really is conjugation; from fibrations, using fundamental groups of base and fibre; from a canonical case where   and takes everything to the identity; from modules, taking to be a -module as an abelian group and again.  The first and last give the classical intuition of these guys: crossed modules are simultaneous generalizations of (a) normal subgroups of , and (b) -modules.

There are various other examples, but the relevant thing here is a theorem of MacLane and Whitehead, that crossed modules model all connected homotopy 2-types.  That is, there’s a correspondence between crossed modules up to isomorphism and 2-types.  Of course, groups model 1-types: any group is the fundmental group for a 1-type, and any 1-type is the classifying space for some group.  Likewise, any crossed module determines a 2-type, and vice versa.  So this theorem suggests why crossed modules might deserve to be called “2-groups” even if they didn’t naturally line up with the alternative definition.

To go up to 3-types and 4-types, the intuitive idea is: “do for crossed modules what we did for groups”.  That is, instead of a map of groups , we consider a map of crossed modules (which is given by a pair of maps between the groups in each) and so forth.  The resulting structure is a square diagram in with a bunch of actions.  Each of these maps is the map for a crossed module.  (We can think of the normal subgroup situation: there are two normal subgroups of , and in each of them, the intersection is normal, so it determines a crossed module).  This is a “crossed square”, and things like this correspond exactly to homotopy 3-types.  This works roughly as before, since there is a notion of a classifying space where , and similarly on for crossed n-cubes.   We can carry on in this way to define a “crossed n-cube”, which correspond to homotopy (n+1)-types.  The correspondence is a little bit more fiddly than it was for groups, but it still exists: any (n+1)-type is the classifying space for a crossed n-cube, and any such crossed n-cube has an (n+1)-type for its classifying space.

This correspondence is the point here.  As we said, when looking at HQFT’s from , we may as well assume that is a d-type.  But then, it’s a classifying space for some crossed (d-1)-cube.  This is a sensible sort of to use in an HQFT, and it ends up giving us a theory which is related to higher gauge theory: a map up to homotopy, where is a crossed n-cube will correspond to the structure of a flat -bundle on , and similarly for cobordisms.  HQFT’s let us look at the structure of this structured cobordism category by means of its linear representations.  Now, it may be that this crossed-cube point of view isn’t the best way to look at , but it is there, and available.

To say more about this, I’ll have to talk more directly about higher gauge theory in its own terms – which I’ll do in part IIb, since this is already pretty long.

 

Tomasz Brzezinski – “Toward Synthetic Non-Commutative Geometry”

So there’s a lot of preparations going on for the workshop HGTQGR coming up next week at IST, and the program(me) is much more developed – many of the talks are now listed, though the schedule has yet to be finalized.  This week we’ll be having a “pre-school school” to introduce the local mathematicans to some of the physics viewpoints that will be discussed at the workshop – Aleksandar Mikovic will be introducing Quantum Gravity (from the point of view of the loop/spin-foam approach), and Sebastian Guttenberg will be giving a mathematician’s introduction to String theory.

These are by no means the only approaches physicists have taken to the problem of finding a theory that incorporates both General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory.  They are, however, two approaches where lots of work has been done, and which appear to be amenable to using the mathematical tools of (higher) category theory which we’re going to be talking about at the workshop.  These are “higher gauge theory”, which very roughly is the analog of gauge theory (which includes both GR and QFT) using categorical groups, and TQFT, which is a very simple type of quantum field theory that has a natural description in terms of categories, which can be generalized to higher categories.

I’ll probably take a few posts after the workshop to write up these, and the many other talks and mini-courses we’ll be having, but right now, I’d like to say a little bit about another talk we had here recently.  Actually, the talk was in Porto, but several of us at IST in Lisbon attended by a videoconference.  This was the first time I’ve seen this for a colloquium-style talk, though I did once take a course in General Relativity from Eric Poisson that was split between U of Waterloo and U of Guelph.  I thought it was a great idea then, and it worked quite well this time, too.  This is the way of the future – and unfortunately it probably will be for some time to come…

Anyway, the talk in question was by Thomasz Brzezinski, about “Synthetic Non-Commutative Geometry” (link points to the slides).  The point here is to take two different approaches to extending differential geometry (DG) and combine the two insights.  The “Synthetic” part refers to synthetic differential geometry (SDG), which is a program for doing DG in a general topos.  One aspect of this is that in a topos where the Law of the Excluded Middle doesn’t apply, it’s possible for the real-numbers object to have infinitesimals: that is, elements which are smaller than any positive element, but bigger than zero.  This lets one take things which have to be treated in a roundabout way in ordinary DG, like , and take them at face value – as an infinitesimal change in .  It also means doing geometry in a completely constructive way.

However, these aspects aren’t so important here.  The important fact about it here is that it’s based on building a theory that was originally defined in terms of sets, or topological spaces – that is, in the toposes , or   – and transplanting it to another category.  This is because Brzezinski’s goal was to do something similar for a different extension of DG, namely non-commutative geometry (NCG).  This is a generalisation of DG which is based on the equivalence between the categories of commutative -algebras (and algebra maps, read “backward” as morphisms in ), and that of locally compact Hausdorff spaces (which, for objects, equates a space with the algebra of continuous functions on it, and an algebra with its spectrum , the space of maximal ideals).  The generalization of NCG is to take structures defined for that create DG, and make similar definitions in the category , of not-necessarily-commutative -algebras.

This category is the one which plays the role of the topos .  It isn’t a topos, though: it’s some sort of monoidal category.  And this is what “synthetic NCG” is about: taking the definitions used in NCG and reproducing them in a generic monoidal category (to be clear, a braided monoidal category).

The way he illustrated this is by explaining what a principal bundle would be in such a generic category.

To begin with, we can start by giving a slightly nonstandard definition of the concept in ordinary DG: a principal -bundle is a manifold with a free action of a (compact Lie) group on it.  The point is that this always looks like a “base space” manifold , with a projection so that the fibre at each point of looks like .  This amounts to saying that is an equalizer:

where the maps from to are (a) the action, and (b) the projection onto .  (Being an equalizer means that makes this diagram commute – has the same composite with both maps – and any other map that does the same factors uniquely through .)  Another equivalent way to say this is that since has two maps into , then it has a map into the pullback (the pullback of two copies of ), and the claim is that it’s actually ismorphic.

The main points here are that (a) we take this definition in terms of diagrams and abstract it out of the category , and (b) when we do so, in general the products will be tensor products.

In particular, this means we need to have a general definition of a group object in any braided monoidal category (to know what is supposed to be like).  We reproduce the usual definition of a group objects so that must come equipped with a “multiplication” map , an “inverse” map and a “unit” map , where is the monoidal unit (which takes the role of the terminal object in a topos like , the unit for ).  These need to satisfy the usual properties, such as the monoid property for multiplication:

(usually given as a diagram, but I’m being lazy).

The big “however” is this: in or , any object is always a comonoid in a canonical way, and we use this implictly in defining some of the properties we need.  In particular, there’s always the diagonal map which satisfies the dual of the monoid property:

There’s also a unique counit , the map into the terminal object, which makes a counital comonoid automatically.  But in a general braided monoidal category, we have to impose as a condition that our group object also be equipped with and making it a counital comonoid.  We need this property to even be able to make sense of the inverse axiom (which this time I’ll do as a diagram):

This diagram uses not only but also the braiding map (part of the structure of the braided monoidal category which, in or is just the “switch” map).  Now, in fact, since any object in or is automatically a comonoid, we’ll require that this structure be given for anything we look at: the analog of spaces (like above), or our group object .  For the group object, we also must, in general, require something which comes for free in the topos world and therefore generally isn’t mentioned in the definition of a group.  Namely, the comonoid and monoid aspects of must get along.  (This comes for free in a topos essentially because the comonoid structure is given canonically for all objects.)  This means:

For a group in or , this essentially just says that the two ways we can go from to (duplicate, swap, then multiply, or on the other hand multiply then duplicate) are the same.

All these considerations about how honest-to-goodness groups are secretly also comonoids does explain why corresponding structures in noncommutative geometry seem to have more elaborate definitions: they have to explicitly say things that come for free in a topos.  So, for instance, a group object in the above sense in the braided monoidal category is a Hopf algebra.  This is a nice canonical choice of category.  Another is the opposite category – this is a standard choice in NCG, since spaces are supposed to be algebras – this would be given the comonoid structure we demanded.

So now once we know all this, we can reproduce the diagrammatic definition of a principal -bundle above: just replace the product with the monoidal operation , the terminal object by , and so forth.  The diagrams are understood to be diagrams of comonoids in our braided monoidal category.  In particular, we have an action ,which is compatible with the maps – so in we would say that a noncommutative principal -bundle is a right-module coalgebra over the Hopf algebra .  We can likewise take this (in a suitably abstract sense of “algebra” or “module”) to be the definition in any braided monoidal category.

To have the “freeness” of the action, there needs to be an equalizer of:

The “freeness” condition for the action is likewise defined using a monoidal-category version of the pullback (fibre product) .

This was as far as Brzezinski took the idea of synthetic NCG in this particular talk, but the basic idea seems quite nice.  In SDG, one can define all sorts of differential geometric structures synthetically, that is, for a general topos: for example, Gonzalo Reyes has gone and defined the Einstein field equations synthetically.  Presumably, a lot of what’s done in NCG could also be done in this synthetic framework, and transplanted to other categories than the usual choices.

Brzezinski said he was mainly interested in the “usual” choices of category, and – so for instance in , a “principal -bundle” is what’s called a Hopf-Galois extension.  Roger Picken did, however, ask an interesting question about other possible candidates for the category to work in.  Given that one wants a braided monoidal category, a natural one to look at is the category whose morphisms are braids.  This one, as a matter of fact, isn’t quite enough (there’s no braid , because this would be a braid with strands in and strands out – which is impossible.  But some sort of category of tangles might make an interestingly abstract setting in which to see what NCG looks like.  So far, this doesn’t seem to have been done as far as I can see.

 

TQFT Club Talks

On a tangential note, let me point out John Baez’ most recent “This Week’s Finds”, which has an accessible but fairly in-depth discussion of climate modelling.  There have been many years of very loud public discussion of this which, for reasons of politics, seems to involve putting the “Mathematical models are inherently elitist gibberish” and “Science knows everything so shut up, moron” positions on display and letting viewer decide.  This is known in the journalism trade as “balance”.  Obviously, within the research community working on them, there’s a mountain of literature on what the models model, how detailed they are, how they work, etc., but it mostly goes over my head, so John’s post strikes a nice balance for me.

Like most computer simulation models, they’re basically discrete approximations to big systems of differential equations – but exactly which systems, how they’re developed, how accurately they model the real thing, and the relative merits of simple vs. complex models is the main point.  The use of Monte Carlo methods and Bayesian analysis to tune the various free parameters is a key part of the matter of how accurate they should be.  Anyway – check it out.

…

Meanwhile, the TQFT club at IST recently started up its series of seminars.  The first few speakers were Rui Carpentier, Anne-Laure Thiel, and Marco Mackaay.  Rui is faculty here at IST, and a former student of Roger Picken (his thesis was on a topic closely related to what he was talking about).  Anne-Laure is a post-doc here at IST, mainly working with Marco, who, however, is actually at the University of the Algarve in Faro, Portugal, and had to come up to Lisbon specially for the seminar.  Anne-Laure and Marco were both speaking mainly about some of the Soergel bimodule stuff which came up at the Oporto meeting on categorification, which I posted about previously, so I’ll go over that in a bit more detail here.

First, though, Rui Carpentier’s talk:

3-colourings of Cubic Graphs and Operators

All these talks involve algebraic representations of categories that can be represented by some graphical calculus, but in this case, one starts with a category whose morphisms are precisely graphs with loose ends.  (The objects are non-negative integers, or, if you like, finite sets of dots which act as the vertices of the loose ends).  The graphs are trivalent (except at the input and output vertices, which are 1-valent), hence “cubic graphs”.  This category is therefore called , and it has a small number of generators, which happen to be quite similar to those which generate the category of 2D-cobordisms (one of the connections to TQFT), though the relations are slightly different.

Roughly, and without drawing the pictures: the generators are cup and cap (the shapes and ), two different trivalent vertices (a , and the same upside-down), the swap (an where the strands cross without a vertex), and the identity (just a vertical line).  There are a number of relations, including Reidemeister moves, on these generating pictures, which ensure that they’re enough to identify graphs up to isotopy of the pictures.

Then the point is to describe graphs using operators – that is, construct a representation .   Given any such representation, these generators provide all the structure maps of a bialgebra – chiefly, unit, counit, multiplication and co-multiplication – and the relations imposed by isotopy make this work (though unlike some other situations, it’s neither commutative nor cocommutative).  The representation he constructs is based on 3-colourings of the edges of the graphs.  At the object level, it assigns to a dot the 3-dimensional vector space .  Being monoidal, takes the object to – the tensor product of the spaces at each vertex.

The idea is that choosing a basis vector in this space amounts to picking a colouring of the incoming and outgoing edges.  For morphisms, we should note that the rule that says when a colouring is admissible is that all the edges incident to a given vertex must have different colours.  Then, given a morphism (graph) , we can describe the linear map most easily by saying that the component in the matrix, given an incoming and outgoing basis vector, just counts the number of admissible graphs that agree with the chosen colourings on the in-edges and out-edges.

There’s another functor, , which counts these graphs with a sign, which marks whether the graph contains an odd or an even number of crossings of differently-coloured edges – negative for odd, positive for even.  This  is the “Penrose evaluation” of the graph.

So these maps give the “operators” of the title, and the rest of the point is to use them to study graphs and their colourings.  One can, in this setup, rewrite some graphs as linear combinations of others – so-called “Skein relations” hold, for example, so that, after applying , the composite of multiplication and comultiplication (taking two points to two points, through one cut-edge) is the same as the identity minus the swap.  This sort of thing appears in formal knot theory all the time, and is a key tool for recoupling in spin networks, and so on…

Given this “recoupling” idea, there are some important facts: first, any graph can be rewritten as a linear combination of planar graphs, and any planar graph with cycles can be reduced to a sum of planar graphs without cycles.  (Rui gave the example of decomposing a pentagonal cycle as a linear combination of four other graphs, three of which are disconnected).  So in fact any graph decomposes as a linear combination of forests (cycle-free graphs, the connected components of which are called “trees”, hence the name).  Another essential fact is that, due to the Euler characteristic of the plane, any planar graph can be split into two parts with at most five edges between them (the basis of the solution to the three utilities puzzle).  Then it so happens that the space of graphs connecting zero in-edges to five out-edges is a 6-dimensional space, , generated by just six forests (including one lonesome tree).

So one theorem which Rui told us about, which can be shown using the so-called Penrose relations (provable using the representations and ), is that there’s just one such graph (which he described in the particular basis above) that evaluates to zero when composed with some other graph.  The proof of this uses the Four Colour Theorem (3-colouring of graph edges being related to 4-colouring of planar regions); in fact, the two theorems are equivalent so if anyone can find an alternative proof of this one, the bonus is another proof of the FCT.

Finally, he gave a conjecture that, if true, would help recognize planar graphs just by the operators produced by the representation (at least it proposes a necessary condition).  This conjecture says that if a planar graph with five output edges (the maximum, remember) is written in the basis mentioned above, then the sum of the coefficients of the five disconnected trees is nonnegative.  (Thus, the connected tree doesn’t contribute to this measure).  This is still just a conjecture – Rui said that to date neither proof nor counterexample has been found.

Soergel Bimodules, Singular and Virtual Braids

As I mentioned up top, I previously posted a bit about work on Soergel bimodules when describing Catharina Stroppel’s talk at the meeting in Faro in July.  To recap: they are associated with categories of modules over rings – specifically, rings of certain classes of symmetric functions.  Even more specifically, given a partition of an integer , there is a subgroup of the symmetric group which fixes the partition.  All such groups act on the ring of -variable polynomial functions , and the ones fixed by form the ring .

Now, these groups are all related to each other in a web of containments, hence so are the rings.  So the module categories are connected by various functors.  Given a containment , modules over can be restricted to ones over , and modules over can be induced up to ones over .  The restriction and induction functors can be represented as “tensor with a bimodule” (this is much the same classification as that for 2-linear maps which I’ve said a bunch about here, except that those must be free).  Applying induction functors repeatedly gives abitrarily large bimodules, but they are built as direct sums of simple parts.  Those simple parts, and any direct sums of them, are Soergel bimodules.  The point is that such bimodules describe morphisms.

So in the TQFT club, Marco Mackaay gave the first of a series of survey talks on this topic, and Anne-Laure Thiel gave a talk about the “Categorification of Singular Braid Monoids and Virtual Braid Groups”.  Since Marco’s talk was the first in a series of surveys, and a lot of what it surveyed was work described in my post on the Faro meeting, I’ll just mention that it dealt with the original motivation of a lot of this work in categorifying representation theory of Lie algebras (c.f. the discussion of the Khovanov-Lauda categorification of quantum groups in the previous post), and also got a bit into some of the different diagrammatic calculi created for that purpose, along the lines of the talks by Ben Webster and Geordie Williamson at that meeting.  Maybe when Marco has given more of these talks, I’ll return to this one here as well.

Now, the starting point of Anne-Laure’s talk was that the setup above lets one define a category with a presentation like that of the Hecke algebra (a quotient of the group algebra of the braid group), where exact relations become isomorphisms.  That is, we go from a category where morphisms are braids (up to isotopy and Reidemeister moves and so forth as usual) to a 2-category where the morphisms are bimodules, which happen to satisfy the same relations.  (The 2-morphisms, bimodule maps, are what allow relations to hold weakly…)

Specifically, the generators of the braid group are , the braids taking the strand over the .  The parallel thing is , where here we’re talking about the subgroup generated by the transposition of and .  In the language of partitions, this corresponds to a with one part of size two, , and the rest of size one.  Now, since this bimodule is actually built from polynomials in , it naturally has a grading – this corresponds to the degree of , since the Hecke algebra involves a quotient giving q-deformed relations – so there is a degree-shift operation that categorifies multiplication by .  This much is due to Soergel.

Anne-Laure’s talk was about extending this to talk about a categorification, first of the braid group in terms of complexes of these bimodules (due actually to Rouquier), then virtual and singular braids.  These, again, are basically creatures of formal knot theory (see link above).  They can be described by a presentation similar to that for braids – just as the braid group has a generators-and-relations presentation in terms of over-crossings of adjacent strands, these incorporate other kinds of crossings.  Singular braids allow a sort of “through” crossing, where the strand goes neither over nor under the .  Virtual braids (the braid variant on virtual knots) have a special type of marked crossing called the “virtual crossing”, drawn with a little circle around it.  These are included as new generators in describing the virtual braid group, and of course some new relations are added to show how they relate to the original generators – variations on the Reidemeister moves, for example.

To categorify this, Anne-Laure explained that these new generators can also be represented by bimodules, but these ones need to be twisted.  In particular, twisting the bimodule by the action of a permutation gives , which is the same as as a left -module, but is acted on by an element on the right through multiplication by , so that .  Then the new generators, beyond the , are of the form .  These then satsify the right relations for this to categorify the virtual braid group.

 

Visit to IST, and XIX Oporto Meeting (Categorification)

It’s been a while since I posted last, but in there I described some issues related to talks I gave in Portugal recently. I’m beginning a postdoc at the Instituto Superior Tecnico, in Lisbon, in less than a month’s time. In the meantime, I’ve been two weeks in Portugal, including a conference and apartment hunting.  Then, last week, I got married. So not surprisingly, I’ve been a bit slow in updating.

The talks I gave are this one, which I gave at IST and this one at the XIX Oporto Meeting on Geometry, Topology and Physics which was held this year in Faro, which this year was a conference on the theme of Categorification!  These talks also appear on my new website, which I got because my hosting at UWO will expire sooner or later, and I wanted something portable (and a portable email address came with it).

Lisbon

Lisbon is an interesting city.  I’ve visited Europe before for conferences and travel and so on, but never for long, and have only lived in North America, where most urban areas are much newer and ancient history more poorly documented.  This is even more so in the southern parts of Europe that were part of the Roman Empire (and even more so in areas of India I’ve travelled in).  I’m looking forward to getting more familiar with the place, which has an exciting and under-appreciated history.  At least I assume it’s underappreciated, since a majority of people in Canada who ask me where I’m moving have never even heard of Lisbon, which I find surprising.

Human settlement in Portugal actually pre-dates homo sapiens, going back to Neanderthals (we often forget there’ve been a few dozen human species before ours. and our era is unusual in human history for having just the one).  Among Sapiens, there have been various periods, most recently the ancient megalith-building cultures, Phoenecians, Greeks, Carthaginians, Romans, Visigoths, Arabs, and then the kingdom (now a republic) of Portugal, established during the Christian reconquest of Iberia.  Lisbon itself dates back at least to Roman times. The oldest surviving areas of Lisbon date back (in streetplan, if not actual buildings) to the Moorish kingdom, when Iberia was known as al-Andalus, some 800 years ago.  Lisbon’s downtown, immediately below this area, couldn’t be more different, being one of the first urban areas planned on a grid – this followed the original area being destroyed in an earthquake and resulting tsunami in 1755.  As the capital of Europe’s first overseas empire, which had reached Japan and Brazil by well over 400 years ago, Lisbon has been a “global city” for at least that long, with spells of boom and bust, and more recently, dictatorship and revolution.  Its location means it was historically a hub that linked the older Mediterranean trading world and the larger Atlantic and Indian Ocean world.

Here is a picture of the main pavillion on the IST campus:

And here is a picture of the neighborhood where I’ll be living, about 10-15 minutes’ walk or two metro stops away:

As you can also see from these pictures, Lisbon contains a number of hills.  It is occasionally reminiscent of San Francisco in that way, and the style of buildings, which also resembles New Orleans occasionally.  And of course, since this is Europe, public spaces that look like this:

And so on.

Visit at IST

Anyway, in the visit at IST, we also had a little mini-conference on categorification, featuring some people who also spoke at Faro (including me) giving longer and more elaborate versions of our talks.  I already commented on mine, so I’ll mention the others:

Rafael Diaz gave a talk about how to categorify noncommutative or “quantum” algebras, in the sense of algebras of power series in noncommuting variables, using ideas similar to the way commutative polynomial algebras can be “categorified” by Joyal’s species.  This “quantum species” idea is laid out partially in this paper. This leads on into ideas about categorifying deformation quantization.

The basic point is to think of “a categorification of a ring R” as a distributive category whose Burnside ring (the ring of isomorphism classes of objects, with algebraic operations from and ) is , or more generally has a “valuation” valued in that is surjective and gets along with the algebra operations.

The category chosen to describe a deformation of is then the category of functors from into .  The main point is then to find a noncommutative product operation , in place of the obvious one derived from , which gives a categorification of a polynomial ring.  This has to do with sticking structured sets together, where some elements of the set can form “links” between the elements of sets – this uses three-”coloured” sets, where one “colour” denotes elements associated to links.

Yazuyoshi Yonezawa gave a talk about some stuff related to link homology invariants such as Khovanov homology.  Such invariants are a major theme for people interested in categorification these days, for various specific reasons, but in general because tangle categories have some nice universal properties, so doing certain kinds of universal higher-dimensional algebra naturally has applications to studying tangles, hence links, hence knots.  In particular, invariants like the Jones, HOMFLY, and HOMFLYPT polynomials, and Reshitikhin-Turaev invariants.  Yazuyoshi’s talk was about an approach to these things based on – as I understood it – some representation theory of quantum , and a diagrammatic calculus that goes with it, for assigning data to strands and crossings of a knot.  (This sort of thing gives a knot invariant as long as it’s invariant under Reidemeister moves – that is, is unaffected by changing the presentation of the knot.  Many of the knot invariants that come up here arise from treating the knot using some sort of diagrammatic calculus – which is where the category theory comes in.)

Aleksandar Mikovic gave a talk about higher gauge theory in the form of 2-BF theory – also known as BFCG theory, this is sort of the “categorified” equivalent of the theory of a flat connection, now taking values in a Lie 2-group.  Actually, he speaks about these in terms of Lie crossed modules, which is a rather nice language for talking about higher-algebraic group-like gadgets in terms of chains of groups with some extra structure (actions of lower groups on higher, and some other things) – see Tim Porter’s “Crossed Menagerie” for a comprehensive look.  The talk was related to finding gauge invariant actions for theories of this sort – the paper it’s based on is one with Joao Faria Martins.

XIX Oporto Meeting

The Oporto meeting on geometry and physics, specifically devoted this year to categorification, was very interesting, with a range of good speakers. Unfortunately, Faro is not optimal as a conference site: the accomodations are a half-hour bus ride from the campus where the conference is held, and the buses come only about once per hour and as a result (of that, and jet-lag, which could happen anyway), I missed some of the talks. Otherwise, it’s a pleasant town with a nice atmosphere, and it was interesting to see some of the variety of people working on categorification.  In particular, a lot of people are working on categorifying aspects of representation theory, which in turn is interesting to topologists, and knot theorists in particular.

One bunch of ideas about categorical representations which was referred to a lot is due to Chuang and Rouquier, substantially described in a paper from a few years ago – here is a post from the Secret Blogging Seminar a few years back describing some of the ideas a bit more succinctly.  The basis for the most popular program being discussed, and the big idea in recent years, is due to Khovanov and Lauda – see the bottom section of this post.

Now, the main invited speakers each gave a series of three hour-long classes on their topic in the mornings, while in the afternoons the other speakers gave 20-minute talks.  The main speakers were these:

Mikhail Khovanov wasn’t able to attend for personal reasons, but there was a great deal of discussion about work that builds on his categorification of quantum groups with Aaron Lauda, who however was there and gave a nice series of talks introducing the ideas (though I missed some because of the unfortunate bus infrastructure). Aaron collects a bunch of resources on this subject here, and I’ll explain a bit of this below.

Sabin Cautis talked about the categorification of in terms of geometric representation theory; the idea here is that there are certain spaces that carry natural representations.  These are flag varieties – the simplest example being Grassmanians – spaces whose points are the -dimensional subspaces of some fixed . In general, flag varieties are spaces whose points consist of a nested sequence of subspaces (the terminology “flag” suggests a flagpole with a 2D rectangle, suspended from a 1D pole, rooted at a 0D point).  The talk was an overview of how to use this to categorify some representation theory.  Here is a recent related paper by Cautis, including Joel Kamnitzer, (I blogged his talk here at UWO a while ago on a similar subject in some more detail), and Anthony Licata.  The basic point is that categories of sheaves on such spaces carry a categorical representation of .

One thing I found interesting – this time, as with Joel’s talk, is that span constructions turn up in this stuff quite naturally, but there is both a similarity and a difference in how they’re used.  In particular, given a flag , we can project to a flag with one fewer entries just by omitting .  So the various flag varieties associated to are connected by a bunch of projections.  Taking two different projections (dropping, say and ), we get a span of varieties – that is, one object with two maps out of it.  We’re talking about spaces of functions on these varieties, so pushing these through spans is of interest.  Lifting a function (by pre-composition – assign a flag the value of the function at its image) is easy – pushing forward is harder.  This involves taking a sum over the function values over the preimage – all the long flags that project to a given short one (to make sure this is tractable, we consider only constructible functions, with finitely many values).  But this sum is weighted.  In the groupoidification program, something similar happens, but the weight there is the groupoid cardinality of the preimage.  Here, it is the Euler characteristic of the preimage (or rather, for each function value, the part of the preimage taking a given value contributes its Eular char. as the weight for that value).  Since groupoid cardinality is like a multiplicative sort of Euler characteristic, there seems to be a close analog here I’d like to understand better.

Catharina Stroppel talked about how the subject relates to Soergel bimodules, and led up to categorifying 3j-symbols.  Soergel bimodules showed up in several different talks about this stuff.  These are the irreducible summands in the bimodule that comes from applying induction functions between module categories finitely many times.

Here, the are  rings of functions invariant under , which is the subgroup of the permutation group which respects a particular composition of (like a partition, but with order – compositions also specify flag varieties, by specifying the codimensions at each inclusion).  The point is that, if , we get inclusions of the rings of invariant functions, and then we can induce representations along those inclusions.  (Notice, by the way, that the correspondence between compositions and the signature of a flag means that this is actually much the same as the inclusions I just described under Sabin Cautis’ talk).  Then doing a finite chain of such inductions gives a functor between module categories.  This can be described by tensoring with some bimodule – the direct summands in this are the Soergel bimodules.  So these are central in talking about these categorical actions and categorified representation theory.  This in turn ended up, in this series of talks, at a categorification of 3j-symbols (which can be built using representations and intertwiners).

Ben Webster talked about how diagrammatic methods used in the Khovanov-Lauda program can be used to categorify algebra representations, and through that, the Reshitikhin-Turaev invariant; the key diagrammatic element turns out to be marking special “red” lines with special rules allowing strands to “act” on them by concatenation.  I must admit Ben Webster’s talks, which ended up rather technical, went far enough over my head that I’m reluctant to summarize, since I was still catching up on the KL program, and this was carrying it quite a bit further.  I do recall that there was much discussion of cyclotomic quotients (partly because Alex Hoffnung later came back to the matter and I had a chance to talk to him about it briefly) – that is, the quotients imposing the relations forcing something to be a root of unity, which isn’t surprising since quantum groups at a root of unity are important and special.  Luckily for the reader who is more up on this stuff than I, the slides can be found here and here.

Dylan Thurston spoke on Heegard-Floer homology (slides here, here, and here – full of great pictures, by the way), which is a homology theory for 3-manifolds (then an invariant for a closed 4-manifold), due to Oszvath and Szabo.  It’s a bi-graded homology theory (i.e. homology theories give complexes for spaces – this gives a bicomplex, with grading in two directions).  This theory gives back the (Conway-)Alexander polynomial for a knot when you take the Euler characteristic of the bicomplex.  That is: there are two directions this complex is graded in: one (columns, say) will correspond to the degree of the variable in the Alexander polynomial; for each , the coefficient of is the Euler characteristic (alternating sum of dimensions) of the entries in that column.  So this is a categorification of this polynomial, in somewhat the way that Khovanov homology categorifies the Jones polynomial.

HF homology can be defined for a knot can be defined in a combinatorial way: a 3-manifold can be represented by a “Heegard diagram” – a 2D surface marked with (coloured) curves, which is a way of keeping track of how a 3-manifold is built by splitting it into parts.  From this diagram, one gets “grid diagrams”, and by a combinatorial process (see the slides for more details) generates the complex.

Others.  I didn’t manage to attend all the other talks (partly because of aforementioned bus issues, and partly because I was still working on mine, having taken a lot of time in Lisbon doing useless things like finding a place to live), but among those I did, there were several that were based on the Khovanov-Lauda program for categorified quantum groups: Anna Beliakova in particular worked with them on categorifying the Casimir (generator of the centre) of the categorified quantum group; people working with Soergel bimodules and categorified Hecke algebras such as Ben Elias and Nicholas Liebedinski.  Then there were the connections to link homology: Christian Blandet and Geordie Williamson talked about things related to the HOMFLYPT polynomial; Krystof Putyra and Emmanuel Wagner gave talks related to Khovanov homology and link homology.  Alex Hoffnung talked about a combinatorial approach for dealing with categorification of cyclotomic quotients as discussed by Ben Webster.

Categorification of Quantum Groups

The reason for categorifying quantum groups, at least in this context, has to do with the manifold invariants associated to them.  Often these come from categories of representations of groups or quantum groups – more generally ones with similar formal properties, meaning roughly monoidal categories with duals (and possibly more structure).  These give state sum invariants, by assigning data from the category to a triangulation of a manifold – objects on edges and morphisms on triangles, say.   The categorification of quantum groups means we pass from having a monoidal category with duals (of representations), to a monoidal 2-category with duals (of representations).  This would mean the state-sum invariants it’s natural to construct are now for 4-manifolds, rather than 3-manifolds.  This is the premise behind spin foam models in gravity, but also has its own life within quantum topology as tools for classifying manifolds, whether or not it accurately describes anything physical.  Marco Mackaay, one of the conference organizers (among several others), has written a bunch on this – for example, this constructs a state-sum invariant given any “spherical” 2-category (a property of certain monoidal 2-categories – see inside for details), and this gives a specific consstruction using the Khovanov-Lauda categorification of .

The Khovanov-Lauda approach to categorifying quantum groups (in particular, deformations of envelopoing algebras of classical Lie algebras, within the category of Hopf algebras)  is most basically about “categorifying” the presentation of an algebra in terms of generators and relations.  That is, we describe a set with some operations in terms of some elements of the set (generators), and some equations (relations) which they satisfy involving the operations.  The presentation used for is the standard one based on an n-vertex (type-A) Dynkin diagram: basically, dots in a row.  There’s a generator for the vertex; the generators for non-adjacent vertices all commute, and for adjacent generators, we have .  (The factor involving is the quantum integer , and becomes 2 in the limit).

To categorify this, we still give generators, but the equations are replaced with isomorphisms – this means we need to be working in some category , hence one essential task is to describe the morphisms.  So: the objects are just rows of dots, labelled by vertices of the Dynkin diagram.  The morphisms are (linearly generated by) isotopy classes of braids from one row to another.  The essential thing is that we have to carefully define “isotopy” here to ensure we get the categorified version of the relations above.  So for non-adjacent-vertex labels, we have the usual Reidemeister moves (the key ones being: we can slide a strand past a crossing, straighten out two complementary crossings); for adjacent-vertex labels, though, we have to tweak this, imposing some relations on strands involving the factors of .  The relations take up a few slides in the talk, but essentially are chosen so that:

Theorem (Khovanov-Lauda): There is an isomorphism of twisted bialgebras between the positive part of and the Grothendieck ring , where multiplication and comultiplication are given by the image of induction and restriction.

Obviously, much more could be said from a five-day conference, but this seems like a nice punchline.