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 ...

Seiberg-Witten theory in 4d is categorification of Seiberg-Witten in 3d

+ 6 like - 0 dislike
105 views

According to Gukov et al. in this 2017 paper Seiberg-Witten theory in 4d categorifies Seiberg-Witten theory in 3d. In what sense is this phrase mentioned? I know what the process of categorification is (e.g. how Khovanov homology categorifies Jones polynomial).

What is the exact relation between the 3d and 4d versions of Seiberg-Witten theory and in what sense is the latter the categorification of the former?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:26 (UTC), posted by SE-user Gorbz
asked Mar 24 in Theoretical Physics by Gorbz (85 points) [ no revision ]
retagged Apr 3
It's just the "TQFT framework" where in 3 dimensions you have homologies (generated by solutions to 3-dimensional SW equations), and in 4-dimensions you have cobordism maps between homologies (by counting solutions to 4-dimensional SW equations that are asymptotic to the 3-dimensional generators), and when you take the cobordism to have empty boundary (i.e. a closed 4-manifold) you get the numerical SW-invariant (roughly speaking).

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig
@ChrisGerig Firstly homology should be categorified to a 2-category if I am correct. Secondly physically what is this cobordism in 4d? Any references?

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Gorbz
Cobordism = 4-dimensional manifold with 3-manifold boundaries. Associated to each 3-manifold is the Seiberg-Witten-Floer homology, and a cobordism induces maps between those homologies. Definitive reference: "Monopoles and 3-manifolds" by Kronheimer-Mrowka.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig
Hi, thanks. I know that book. My confusion is in what sense the "cobordism" is equal to the SW invariants in 4d. These are polynomial invariants. On the other hand homologies are vector spaces. How are polynomial invariants categorification of a vector space, I thought that that should be a 2 category!

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Gorbz
The "SW invariant" I refer to is an integer, and it is obtained from a closed 4-manifold (cobordism with empty ends) by stretching out two balls, so you get a cobordism from 3-sphere to 3-sphere and hence a map on homologies which (roughly speaking) is $\mathbb{Z}\to\mathbb{Z}$, where the image of 1 is the SW invariant.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig
Gukov is probably using "categorification" in a vague way.

This post imported from StackExchange MathOverflow at 2017-04-03 17:27 (UTC), posted by SE-user Chris Gerig

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
...