3
$\begingroup$

I am trying to show that in a cohomological TQFT, given a physical operator $\phi^{(0)}$, one can construct a chain of non-local physical operators. In doing so, I need to show that a certain set of operators $\phi^{(n)}$ obey the so called topological descent equations. I am following these notes, as well as these ones. This unanswered StackExchange question is similar, but somewhat more general and unanswered. I will be following the conventions of my first reference.

The setup is as follows. We consider a TQFT with a nilpotent fermionic (supercharge), operator $Q$. Physical operators are those for which $[Q,\mathcal{O}\}=0$, where $[\cdot,\cdot\}$ is the graded commutator (the ordinary commutator unless both arguments are fermionic). Being a TQFT, we also have that the momentum operator is $P_{\mu}=\{Q,G_{\mu}\}$ for some fermionic operator $G_{\mu}$.

We take a (for simplicity), bosonic physical operator $\phi^{(0)}$ , so that $[Q,\phi^{(0)}]=0$. From here, we define descendent operators: \begin{align*} & \phi^{(1)}=\phi_{\mu}^{(1)}dx^{\mu}=[G_{\mu},\phi^{(0)}]dx^{\mu} \\ & \phi^{(2)}=\phi_{\mu\nu}^{(2)}dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}=\{G_{\mu},[G_{\nu},\phi^{(0)}]\}dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu}=\{G_{\mu},\phi^{(1)}_{\nu}\}dx^{\mu}\wedge dx^{\nu} \end{align*} and so on. The topological descent equations are: $$ d\phi^{(n)}=i[Q,\phi^{(n+1)}\}\text{ , for all }n\geq 0\text{.} $$

For $n=0$, things are relatively easy because $\phi^{(0)}$ is physical. My second reference shows this case in detail. However, I am having trouble showing the the next-simplest case, $n=1$. I am able to obtain $d\phi^{(1)}=i[Q,\phi^{(2)}]$ up to a second term, but cannot see why the second term vanishes. I will repeat my calculation here.

\begin{align*} d\phi^{(1)} &= \frac{\partial\phi_{\mu}^{(1)}}{\partial x^{\nu}}dx^{\nu}\wedge dx^{\mu} \\ &= i[P_{\nu},\phi^{(1)}_{\mu}]dx^{\nu}\wedge dx^{\mu} \\ &= i[\{Q,G_{\nu}\},\phi^{(1)}_{\mu}]dx^{\nu}\wedge dx^{\mu} \\ &= i \left( - [\{G_{\nu},\phi^{(1)}_{\mu}\},Q] - [\{\phi^{(1)}_{\mu},Q\},G_{\nu}] \right) \\ &= i[Q,\phi^{(2)}]-i[\{\phi^{(1)}_{\mu},Q\},G_{\nu}]dx^{\nu}\wedge dx^{\mu} \end{align*}

Where in the second equality I have used that momentum is the generator of translations, and in the fourth equality I have used the Jacobi-like identity $[\{A,B\},C]=\{[B,C],A\}-\{[C,A],B\}$.

The first term is as desired, but I can see no reason why the term $-i[\{\phi^{(1)}_{\mu},Q\},G_{\nu}]dx^{\nu}\wedge dx^{\mu}$ should vanish. I have fiddled around with Jacobi-like identities and tried to relate it to $0=d^{2}\phi^{(0)}$, but with no luck. Any pointers would be much appreciated.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

To fix notation, the "b-ghost" $b_{\alpha}$ satisfy $[Q,b_{\alpha}]=\partial_{\alpha}$ and we have

$$ [Q,\phi^{(0)}]=0,\qquad \phi_{\alpha}^{(1)}=[b_{\alpha},\phi^{(0)}],\qquad [Q,\phi^{(1)}_{\alpha}]=\partial_{\alpha}\phi^{(0)} $$

Now consider $\phi_{\alpha\beta}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},[b_{\beta]},\phi^{(0)}]]=\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}]$, then

$$ [Q,\phi^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}]=\frac{1}{2}[Q,[b_{[\alpha},b_{\beta]},\phi^{(0)}]]=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{[\alpha}\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}-\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},\partial_{\beta]}\phi^{(0)}]=\partial_{[\alpha}\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)} $$

where I used that

$$ -\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},\partial_{\beta]}\phi^{(0)}]=-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{[\beta}[b_{\alpha]},\phi^{(0)}]=-\frac{1}{2}\partial_{[\beta}\phi_{\alpha]}^{(1)}=+\frac{1}{2}\partial_{[\alpha}\phi_{\beta]} $$

Note that the anti-symetrization of the indices was important to get the right sign.

Now, you are trying to do the reverse, i.e. find $\phi^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}$ by playing with $\phi^{(1)}_{\alpha}$, here we go:

$$ \partial_{[\alpha}\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)}=[[Q,b_{[\alpha}],\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)}]=[Q,[b_{[\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}]]+[b_{[\alpha},[Q,\phi_{\beta}^{(1)}]] $$

the last term can be worked out by noting that $[Q,\phi_{\beta}^{(1)}]=\partial_{\beta}\phi^{(0)}$:

$$ [b_{[\alpha},[Q,\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)}]]=[b_{[\alpha},\partial_{\beta]}\phi^{(0)}]=\partial_{[\beta}[b_{\alpha]},\phi^{(0)}]=\partial_{[\beta}\phi^{(1)}_{\alpha]}=-\partial_{[\alpha}\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)} $$

so we get

$$ \partial_{[\alpha}\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)}=[Q,[b_{[\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}]]-\partial_{[\alpha}\phi_{\beta]}^{(1)}\implies [Q,\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}]]=\partial_{[\alpha}\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]} $$

and so $\phi^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}]=\frac{1}{2}[b_{[\alpha},[b_{\beta]},\phi^{(0)}]]$.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment! To check my understanding, are you saying that the topological descent equations hold only up to $Q$-cohomology? That would make a lot of sense actually. Furthermore, I don't quite understand how you obtained the second equality on your third line. Applying a Jacobi-type identity to this expression again leaves me with an extra term of the form $[[b,Q],[b,\phi^{(0)}]]$. $\endgroup$
    – CoffeeCrow
    May 10, 2021 at 5:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CoffeeCrow I appologize for the notation, I actually did a mistake in my previous computation, but now I fixed and made all the indices explicit. You was right about the extra term of the Jacobi identity, There was also a sing mistake in my previous answer. I hope this update of my answer will settle the question. $\endgroup$
    – Nogueira
    May 10, 2021 at 22:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @CoffeeCrow, No problem. Yes, I can explain better the notation: $[b_{[\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta]}]\equiv [b_{\alpha},\phi^{(1)}_{\beta}]-[b_{\beta},\phi^{(1)}_{\alpha}]$. Note that you can put a factor of one over two or not, it is a matter of taste $\endgroup$
    – Nogueira
    May 11, 2021 at 12:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, $b_{\alpha}$ is suppose to be a mode of the $b_{\alpha}(z)$, not the whole tower of mode, so it is constant, it commutes with derivatives. $\endgroup$
    – Nogueira
    May 12, 2021 at 21:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, that makes a lot of sense. In the way I'm thinking about this problem, that fact follows from $G_{\mu}$ being a Noether charge, which at the algebra level corresponds to $b_{\alpha}$ being a single mode! Thanks again for your patience and all of your help! $\endgroup$
    – CoffeeCrow
    May 12, 2021 at 23:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.