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 ...

J-function of cotangent bundle of complete flag variety

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
180 views

Givental and Kim showed that the $J$-function of the complete flag variety $Fl_n=SL_{n}/B$ becomes an eigenfunction of the Toda Hamiltonian. How about the $J$-function of the cotangent bundle $T^*Fl_n$ of the complete flag variety? Negut mentioned in the first page of the paper that the partition function $Z(m)$ in the paper is closely related to the $J$-function of $T^*Fl_n$. Does it mean that the $J$-function of $T^*Fl_n$ is an eigenfunction of the Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian $L(m)$ written in p.5 of the paper? Or does it satisfy some integrable differential equations which is closely related to Calogero-Sutherland?

I have done simple calculation for the case of $n=2$. For $Fl_2=\mathbb{P}^1$, the $J$-function is written as \begin{equation} J(\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar)=e^{\frac{tx}{\hbar}}\sum_{d\ge0} \frac{e^{td}}{\prod_{k=1}^d(x+k\hbar)^2}~. \end{equation} It is easy to check that \begin{equation} \left[\hbar^2\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2}-e^t\right]J(\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar)=0~. \end{equation} On the other hand, the $J$-function of $T^*\mathbb{P}^1$ takes the form \begin{equation} J(T^*\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar,m)\propto e^{\frac{tx}{\hbar}}\sum_{d\ge0} \frac{e^{td}\prod_{k=0}^{d-1}(x+m+k\hbar)^2}{m^{2d}\prod_{k=1}^d(x+k\hbar)^2}~, \end{equation} where we introduce $m$ in such a way that $J(T^*\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar,m) \to J(\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar)$ as $m\to\infty$. Essentially, $J(T^*\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar,m)$ satisfy the Gauss hypergeometric differential equation since it is of ${}_2F_1$ form. However, I cannot see that $J(T^*\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar,m)$ (up to a certain factor) is an eigenfunction of the Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian $L(m)$. Is there any relation between the Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian of $A_1$-type and the Gauss hypergeometric differential equation? Or is $J(T^*\mathbb{P}^1;\hbar,m)$ NOT an eigenfunction of the Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-13 09:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Satoshi Nawata
asked Mar 28, 2014 in Mathematics by Satoshi Nawata (75 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Oct 13, 2014
Have you tried arxiv.org/abs/1001.0056 ?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-13 09:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Ben-Zvi
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I have tried it although I, as a physicist, cannot understand everything. Does the quantum (KZ) connection in this paper becomes a Hamiltonian of or annihilates the J-function of $T^*Fl_n$? The J-function involves gravitational descendent while it seems to me that the paper consider only quantum cohomology of springer resolutions. So I am not sure that this paper can be directly applied to the J-function.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-13 09:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Satoshi Nawata
If I understand correctly, the point of the quantum D-module is that the J-function is a solution of it.. (the $\hbar$ in the quantum D-module counts descendants). That paper identifies the equivariant quantum D-module of $T^*Fl$ with the Calogero-Moser system for the dual group... (ie the quantized Seiberg Witten integrable system for the N=2* theory as you might expect)

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-13 09:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user David Ben-Zvi
Thank you very much! I will read the paper more in detail.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-10-13 09:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Satoshi Nawata

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$\hbar$ysicsOve$\varnothing$flow
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
...