• 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.


PO is now at the Physics Department of Bielefeld University!

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


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

205 submissions , 163 unreviewed
5,047 questions , 2,200 unanswered
5,345 answers , 22,709 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
816 active unimported users
More ...

  SYZ mirror symmetry for K3 surfaces

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

My question is essentially related to this post, but let me formulate it again. Let $f:S \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1$ be an elliptic fibration, then this can be a SLAG fibration with respect to another complex structure on $S$, say $S_K$. Since the compactified dual fibration $f^\vee$ is naturally identified with $f$ (see the above post, especially Gross's answer), it seems the mirror manifold of $S_K$ is again $S_K$. However, this does not seem compatible with mirror symmetry of K3 surfaces (in the sense of Dolgachev for example).

Can anyone clarify the problem? A possible mistake is that the dual fibration $f^\vee$ cannot be identified with $f$...

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-04-02 13:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Vladhagen

asked Jun 10, 2014 in Mathematics by Vladhagen (10 points) [ revision history ]
edited Apr 2, 2015 by Dilaton
as far as I know, Dolgachev's version of mirror symmetry is not compatible with the physicists' one

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-04-02 13:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Misha Verbitsky

1 Answer

+ 2 like - 0 dislike

My answer in the link given above is purely at a topological level, saying that if we have a $T^2$-fibration, the dual is canonically homeomorphic. However, $T$-duality should also be viewed as exchanging complex and symplectic structure . For K3 surfaces, this can be described in terms of forms, and I sketched this in an answer to a different question, Mirror symmetry for hyperkahler manifold.

Dolgachev's mirror symmetry can be viewed as a subset of physicist's mirror symmetry. The key paper explaining mirror symmetry for K3 surfaces from a physics point of view is a paper of Aspinwall and Morrison, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9404151. There is a Teichmuller space of SCFTs on a K3 surface, essentially the space of space-like four-planes in $H^{even}(X,{\mathbb R})$, equipped with the Mukai pairing and lattice $H^{even}(X,{\mathbb Z})$, which has signature $(4,20)$. To first approximation, one can view one of these four-planes as the subspace spanned by the real and imaginary parts of a holomorphic two-form, the Kaehler form, and the exponential of the $B$-field (although the actual description in terms of this data is a bit more complicated). The actual moduli space of SCFTs is obtained by dividing out by the group of automorphisms of the lattice $H^{even}(X,{\mathbb Z})$. This group is generated by the "classical" identifications, coming from automorphisms of $H^2(X,{\mathbb Z})$, and additional automorphisms coming from integral shifts in the $B$-field and finally a choice of "mirror involution". This comes from a choice of a hyperbolic plane $H\subset H^2(X,{\mathbb Z})$, and the mirror involution exchanges the hyperbolic plane $H^0(X,{\mathbb Z})\oplus H^4(X,{\mathbb Z})$ with $H$ and leaves everything else fixed.

The choice of hyperbolic plane $H$ can be viewed as the choice of $H$ in the Dolgachev construction. This involution acts on the full Teichmuller space of SCFTs, but after making some choices, one sees that it restricts to Dolgachev's description of mirror K3 families. I can provide more details if needed.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2015-04-02 13:13 (UTC), posted by SE-user Mark Gross
answered Jul 22, 2014 by Mark Gross (20 points) [ no revision ]

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:
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).
Please complete the anti-spam verification

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

Your rights