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

160 submissions , 132 unreviewed
4,164 questions , 1,543 unanswered
5,016 answers , 21,273 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
586 active unimported users
More ...

  Level-rank duality in WZW models and CS theories

+ 3 like - 0 dislike
101 views

I know that the classical level-rank duality in the $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(r)_l$ WZW model states that the space of conformal blocks of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(r)_l$ is isomorphic to that of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(l)_r$, with $r,l>0$. This has been shown from a physical point of view here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/055032139090380V and also proved by mathematicians in this article: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cmp/1104249321. It has been also shown that this level-rank follows from a "strange duality" (the Beauville-Donagi-Tu conjecture, no longer a conjecture, by the way).

By the WZW/CS connection, the corresponding $d=3$ topological CS theory ($\mathsf{SU}(N)$ at level $k$) also enjoys this duality, which I expect to be: $\mathsf{SU}(r)_l\leftrightarrow \mathsf{SU}(l)_r$ (or $\mathsf{SU}(r)_l\leftrightarrow \mathsf{U}(l)_r$).

Now, the duality in the WZW model follows from the conformal embedding

\begin{equation}\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(r)_l\oplus \widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(l)_r\oplus\widehat{\mathfrak{u}}(1)\subset \widehat{\mathfrak{gl}}(lr)_1\end{equation}

which means that the central charge of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(r)_l\oplus \widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(l)_r$ is equal to that of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(lr)_1$.

In the last few years physicists became interested with level-rank dualities in connection with CS theories with matter, for example here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07457

What I don't understand is why they write the above duality for topological CS theories with a level $-r$ on the right-hand side, namely

\begin{equation} \mathsf{SU}(r)_l\leftrightarrow \mathsf{U}(l)_{-r}\end{equation}

where $\mathsf{U}(r)_l=\frac{\mathsf{U}(1)_{lr}\times\mathsf{SU}(r)_l}{\mathbb{Z}_r}$.

My questions are:

  1. What's the meaning of that minus sign (apart from putting a minus in the Lagrangian, of course) and where does it come from (since there's no sign of it in the WZW level-rank)?
  2. How is the CS theory with a negative level related with the corresponding WZW model (for example if we just substitute $-r$ in the central charge of $\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}(r)_{-l}$, then the above embedding is no more a conformal embedding)?
  3. Why $\mathsf{SU}(r)_l\leftrightarrow \mathsf{U}(l)_r$ is not a good CS level-rank duality?

Moreover, from the CFT point of view the $\widehat{\mathfrak{u}}(1)_k$ is not really a WZW model, in fact there is no unambiguous notion of level, since by rescaling the generators of its current algebra we can change the level of the "would-be" model at our will. Thus, the level-rank $\mathsf{U}(1)_2\leftrightarrow\mathsf{U}(1)_{-2}$ seems something very "formal" to me, since all the $\widehat{\mathfrak{u}}(1)$ Heisenberg algebras are isomorphic, independently of the value of $Z$ in

.\begin{equation}[J_m,J_n]=Zm\delta_{m+n,0}.\end{equation}

Thanks

asked May 29 in Theoretical Physics by green.onion (15 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jun 1 by green.onion

Since you have three questions, the sentence "My question is" should be replaced by "My questions are" instead.

@NewStudent Yeah, sure. I thought the question was only one, but I divided it in three parts for clarity. Anyhow, I changed it as you suggested. Thanks 

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
...