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
4,848 answers , 20,603 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
501 active unimported users
More ...

$G_2$-structure in analogy with supergravity superspace constraints

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
103 views

There is an evident analogy between (1) closed $G_2$-structure and (2) supergravity superspace constraints. I am wondering if and where in the literature this analogy has been expanded on.

What I mean is this:

(1) On the 7-dimensional Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^7$ there is a canonical constant 3-form $\phi$, often called the "associative 3-form", and a $G_2$-structure on a 7-manifold $X$ is a 3-form on $X$ which locally looks like this $\phi$. 

(2) On the super-Minkowski spacetime $\mathbb{R}^{10,1|32}$ there is a canonical constant super 4-form whose components are $\Gamma_{a b \alpha \beta}$, and an on-shell background of 11-dimensional supergravity is constrained to have super 4-form flux that locally looks like this.

In stating it this way, I am intentionally glossing over some fine print, but not over much.

For the first statement any classical source will do, a good discussion is (see in particular on p. 21) in

  • Robert BryantSome remarks on G2-structures, Proceedings of the 12th Gökova Geometry-Topology Conference 2005, pp. 75-109 pdf

The second statement originates around 

see also for instance section 3.1 of 

  • Gianguido Dall’Agata, Davide Fabbri, Christophe Fraser, Pietro Fré, Piet Termonia, Mario Trigiante,The Osp(8|4) singleton action from the supermembrane, Nucl.Phys.B542:157-194,1999, (arXiv:hep-th/9807115)

This is for 11d supergravity. For 10d supergravity theories similar statements hold, but the formulas have more components and are a little bit less directly analogous to $G_2$-structures.

And of course there is the whole story of compactifying 11d sugra on $G_2$-manifolds. So what I am after here must be well known and this question will just show my ignorance of the literature, but anyway:

Where is an explicit discussion that makes the above anaology manifest, that the associative 3-form on $\mathbb{R}^7$ is a local model for a differential 3-form on a curved $G_2$-manifold in much the same way that the super-4-form with compoments $\Gamma_{a b \alpha \beta}$ on $\mathbb{R}^{10,1|32}$ is the local model for the super-4-form flux on curved solutions to 11-dimensional supergravity?

asked Jan 12, 2015 in Theoretical Physics by Urs Schreiber (5,745 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jan 12, 2015 by Urs Schreiber

Maybe I should put this more directly:

A \(G_2\)-manifold structure is equivalently a 3-form on a Riemannian 7-manifold which is

  1. locally of the form \(\phi_{a b c}E^a \wedge E^b\wedge E^c\) for \((E^a)\) the vielbein field;
  2. covariantly constant.

Analogously, the spinorial part of the 4-form flux in 11-dimensional supegravity is

  1. locally of the form \(\Gamma_{a b \alpha \beta} E^a \wedge E^b \wedge E^\alpha \wedge E^\beta\) for \((E^a, E^\alpha)\) the super-vielbein;
  2. covariantly constant.

Clearly these are two instances of the same pattern. Which article would make this relation?

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$\hbar$ysics$\varnothing$verflow
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
...