Quantcast
  • Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.

News

New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback

Attributions

(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

145 submissions , 122 unreviewed
3,930 questions , 1,398 unanswered
4,862 answers , 20,637 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
502 active unimported users
More ...

Modular invariance for higher genus

+ 7 like - 0 dislike
676 views

As far as I understand, there are roughly 2 "common" kinds of 2D conformal field theories:

  1. Theories that are defined only on the plane, more precisely, on any surface of vanishing genus. Such a theory can be mathematically described by a vertex operator algebra, or by "usual" axiomatic QFT in 2D with the added requirement of conformal invariance
  2. Theories defined on arbitrary surfaces. Such a theory can be described e.g. by Segal's axioms

In order for a theory of the 1st category to become a theory of the 2nd category, it must pass the test of modular invariance. In my experience, this term usually means that the theory has to be defined in genus 1, i.e. that the would-be torus partition function

$$Tr(q^{L_0-\frac{c}{24}}\bar{q}^{\bar{L_0}-\frac{\bar{c}}{24}}) $$

is invariant under the modular group $SL(2,\mathbb{Z})$

What about higher genus? Is the torus condition sufficient to make the theory well defined there? Or does it impose additional conditions? If so, can they be cast into an anologous elegant algebraic form? Have these conditions been proved for CFTs used in string theory?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Squark
asked Jan 14, 2012 in Theoretical Physics by anonymous [ no revision ]
This is a very good question. Put it in another way: Can representation of modular transformation for torus completely determine a (chiral) CFT?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Xiao-Gang Wen

3 Answers

+ 4 like - 0 dislike

The modular group $SL(2,{\mathbb Z})$ is generated to $Sp(2h,{\mathbb Z})$, for genus $h$. That's the group exchanging the 1-cycles of the Riemann surface while preserving the intersection numbers (an antisymmetric tensor). Recall that the moduli space of Riemann surfaces is higher-dimensional, namely $(6h-6)$-dimensional (real dimensions) for $h>1$.

Quite generally, the modular invariance at $h=1$ guarantees the modular invariance at all finite $h$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
answered Jan 15, 2012 by Luboš Motl (10,248 points) [ no revision ]
I know about the higher genus moduli group, but how do you show h=1 modular invariance implies h>1 modular invariance?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Squark
Hi Squark, see e.g. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0370269387909464 - scholar.google.com/… - sorry for not reviewing the papers here

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Luboš Motl
+ 2 like - 0 dislike

A higher genus surface can be considered as a connected sum of tori, and the linking cylinder in the connected sum can be replaced by a sum over all the propagating particles. If the theory is modular invariant on the torus, you know that you can do modular transformations on each torus separately, and everything is consistent. It is intuitive that every large diffeomorphism of a high genus surface can be generated using generators each in the individual SL(2,Z)s of the different tori of the connected sum. So by knowing torus modular invariance of the theory, correct for all tori and insertions on the tori, you learn that the large diffeomorphisms are ok.

A sketch of a proof: you cut up the torus along loops into pieces homeomorphic to triangles, then consider the image of the loops under diffeomorphism. Restricting to each torus, there is a nonzero intersection number of the image of the loops with the old loops, and you perform a large diffeomorphism whenever this can reduce the intersection number. continue on each torus until you can't go reduce the intersection numbers any further. At this point, the intersection number must be as low as possible, and this means that the curves are isotopic to their original position, so that the diffeomorphism is now continuously connected to the identity.

I did not check this in detail (I should), but the main lemma you need--- that you can always reduce a non-minimal intersection number by isotoping the curves to go near one genus, and doing an SL(2,Z) is very plausible. There might also be an easier proof.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Ron Maimon
answered May 31, 2012 by Ron Maimon (7,535 points) [ no revision ]
+ 0 like - 0 dislike

A review reference for the case of superstrings in NSR formalism: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.3167

I have been told that pure-spinor formalism has gone slightly further on the genus count.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user crackjack
answered Jan 15, 2012 by crackjack (110 points) [ no revision ]
Thx, but I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. You are talking about performing integration over the moduli space in higher genus while I am talking about having a CFT well defined in higher genus which is a weaker requirement

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-04-05 17:28 (UCT), posted by SE-user Squark

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
p$\hbar$ysicsOver$\varnothing$low
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.




user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights
...