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
4,853 answers , 20,624 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

Infinite dimensional 2-Hilbert spaces

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
64 views

Is there a definition of an infinite dimensional 2-Hilbert space?

Finite dimensional 2-Hilbert spaces have been discussed by Baez in http://arxiv.org/abs/q-alg/9609018 In the more recent paper by Baez, Baratin, Freidel and Wise http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4969 a notion of infinite dimensional 2-vector space is discussed, building on work by Crane, Sheppeard and Yetter. They also have a few proposals for what an infinite dimensional 2-Hilbert space should be, but "the details still need to be worked out". Is that the current state of knowledge?

Another way of asking this question is the following. If I want to see a field theory that has an infinite dimensional Hilbert space of states as an extended field theory, what kind of objects should I assign to codimension 2 manifolds?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-12-13 14:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Samuel Monnier
asked Sep 4, 2014 in Theoretical Physics by Samuel Monnier (60 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Dec 13, 2014

1 Answer

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

This may be more of a comment or opinion.

A 2-Hilbert space is a Hilbert space on two levels: It's enriched in Hilbert spaces (morphisms) and it's a categorification of a Hilbert space in the sense of having biproducts for addition, Deligne-product with $\mathrm{Vect}$ for scalar multiplication and dual structure for the sesquilinear form. Which of those levels do you want to have infinite dimensional? The first one shouldn't be a big deal, you just allow for infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces as $\mathrm{hom}$-spaces.

The second one is the harder one. I personally think that it is no big deal "formally", it just amounts to dropping the requirement that the 2-Hilbert space be finitely semisimple. The question is, will you find interesting examples that are actually any use? You have the same in vector spaces. I can cook up tons of infinite dimensional vector spaces, but how do they become interesting and tractable at the same time? By adding some extra structure, say as a Banach space, a $C^*$-algebra, an $\mathrm{L}^2$-space over some measurable space or so. In that sense, I'd say that there already is a theory of "dull" infinite dimensional 2-Hilbert spaces, but people are thinking about interesting ones with extra structure, such as having a measure on objects.

As for your final question, I'd guess it will depend on the context of what you're doing. Are you considering some $n$-dimensional moduli space ($0 < n < \infty$)? Smooth groupoids? Then the approach with measurable categories may suffice. If your additional structure is different, a different variant might be needed.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-12-13 14:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Turion
answered Sep 12, 2014 by Turion (0 points) [ no revision ]
Thanks... I already have a vague idea along these lines of what a 2-Hilbert space should be, and actually there is even a concrete proposal in the paper by Baez, Baratin, Freidel and Wise. I was asking if there is a precise and well-studied definition people agree upon (the answer seems to be no...).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-12-13 14:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Samuel Monnier
For my final question, when I said "field theory", I meant it in the down-to-earth physical sense. Say consider the free boson in dimension 2 or higher. This is a non-topological theory with an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. What kind of object would we associate to codimension 2 manifolds? I would expect the answer to this question to be valid for any reasonable, non-anomalous field theory a physicist could be interested in.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-12-13 14:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Samuel Monnier
@SamuelMonnier, for any precise definition someone can probably come up with an example where the definition is unsuitable. As for well-studiedness, these guys have already worked out their example in depth a lot (and found some nice insights as I find). I don't know about your example. If you say it's a non-topological theory, then you must assume some background field like a metric. I have only met higher vector spaces in extended TQFTs, so I have no idea how one would use a 2-vector space here.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-12-13 14:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Turion
@SamuelMonnier, it just came to my mind, if you were interested in TQFTs, you might search for "non-semisimple" TQFTs and maybe find something useful there?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2014-12-13 14:17 (UTC), posted by SE-user Turion

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$\hbar$ysicsOv$\varnothing$rflow
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
...