This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Explicit String bundlesthanks: orcid.org/0000-0002-3478-0522
This document is released under a CC0 license: creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/.

David Michael Roberts
(1 July 2014)
\marginnote

These notes are the written version of a talk delivered at Herriot-Watt University on 26 June 2014 at the Workshop on Higher Gauge Theory and Higher Quantization. DMR is supported by ARC grant number DP120100106.
Thanks to David Baraglia, Michael Murray, Christian Saemann and Raymond Vozzo for helpful converstations. If we look back at the historical development of bundles, the notion of a principal HH-bundle for HH a Lie group arose via considerations of homogeneous spaces G/HG/H, and the defining bundle GG/HG\to G/H. Here HH is a closed subgroup of GG, and this will be a general assumption for the talk. For instance, we can conside Stiefel manifolds, Grassmann manifolds, projective spaces, Minkowski space, spheres,…. I am going to leverage this in order to address the

Challenge.

Write down a (nontrivial) 2-bundle. Equivalently, write down a Čech cocycle with values in an interesting crossed module (K𝑡H,H×K𝑎K)(K\xrightarrow{t}H,H\times K\xrightarrow{a}K).

Recall [Bre94] that the cocycle equations are

hijαhjkβ=\displaystyle h_{ij}^{\alpha}h_{jk}^{\beta}= t(kijkαβγ)hikγ\displaystyle t(k_{ijk}^{\alpha\beta\gamma})h_{ik}^{\gamma}
t(hija,kjklβλε)kijlαεδ=\displaystyle t(h_{ij}^{a},k_{jkl}^{\beta\lambda\varepsilon})k_{ijl}^{\alpha\varepsilon\delta}= kijkαβγkiklγλδ.\displaystyle k_{ijk}^{\alpha\beta\gamma}k_{ikl}^{\gamma\lambda\delta}.

where the hijαh_{ij}^{\alpha} are HH-valued functions, the kijkαβγk_{ijk}^{\alpha\beta\gamma} are KK-valued functions and the two sorts of indices label open sets of the base space. We shall return to this momentarily. Note that at this point we haven’t even started to consider connections, which are necessary for gauge theory (and in fact we won’t even go so far today).

Note.

I am not going to use good open covers (that is, those such that non-empty finite intersections are contractible), since in many geometric situations there are naturally arising open covers that are not good. Instead, I will be using truncated globular hypercovers (these are open covers with particular properties), and I will define these in a moment. For now, suffice it to say, this is why there are two different sorts of indices on the cocycle.

Christian Saemann asked (Feb 2013): I want a 2-bundle on (conformally compactified)111recall that this is diffeomorphic to S5×S1S^{5}\times S^{1} 5,1\mathbb{R}^{5,1}. So let’s try lifting the frame bundle of S5×S1S^{5}\times S^{1} to a String bundle. Note that the S1S^{1} factor contributes nothing (its frame bundle is trivial) so just work over S5S^{5}. Note that the frame bundle of S5S^{5} is most definitely not trivial.

The frame bundle FS5S5FS^{5}\to S^{5} is classified by a map S5S4SO(5)S^{5}\supset S^{4}\to SO(5), called the clutching or transition function. Since S5S^{5} is 4-connected, the first Stiefel-Whitney class w1w_{1} necessarily vanishes, as does the characteristic class p1/2H4(S5,)p_{1}/2\in H^{4}(S^{5},\mathbb{Z}) that is the obstruction to lifting to a String bundle. Thus we can be assured that the lift we are after does exist. From the vanishing of w1w_{1} we know the transition function lifts to a function S4Spin(5)S^{4}\to\operatorname{Spin}(5), and so defines a class in π4(Spin(5))\pi_{4}(\operatorname{Spin}(5)), which is the group /2\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} [MT64]. Since FS5FS^{5} is not trivial, the transition function needs to represent the non-trivial homotopy class. We want to write down an explicit function in coordinates, rather than use some abstract representative.

To approach this, we first use the exceptional isomorphism Spin(5)Sp(2)\operatorname{Spin}(5)\simeq Sp(2), where Sp(2)Sp(2) is the group of 2×22\times 2 unitary quaternionic matrices. The non-trivial class in π4(Sp(2))\pi_{4}(Sp(2)) is represented by a map S4S3Sp(1)Sp(2)S^{4}\to S^{3}\simeq Sp(1)\hookrightarrow Sp(2) and here Sp(1)Sp(1) is the group of unit quaternions. The map between spheres is (up to homotopy) the suspension of the Hopf map S3S2S^{3}\to S^{2}, which is not a priori a smooth map, and the inclusion is q(q001)q\mapsto\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}q&0\\ 0&1\end{array}\right). Note that this implies that FS5FS^{5} lifts to an Sp(1)Sp(1)-bundle, and this is what we shall assue without further comment.

The first task is then to write down a smooth, non-null-homotopic smooth map S4Sp(1)S^{4}\to Sp(1). We shall use quaternionic coordinates on S4=1S^{4}=\mathbb{HP}^{1}, that is, homogeneous coordinates [p;q][p;q] where at least one of pp, qq is non-zero.

Proposition.

The smooth function

T[p;q]=2pq¯ip¯q|p|4+|q|4|p|4+|q|4(Sp(1))T[p;q]=\frac{2p\bar{q}i\bar{p}q-|p|^{4}+|q|^{4}}{|p|^{4}+|q|^{4}}\quad(\in Sp(1))

represents the non-trivial class of π4(Sp(1))\pi_{4}(Sp(1)), and hence is the transition function for FS5FS^{5}.

Now we want to shift perspective a little bit, and note that the function TT gives rise to a smooth functor from the Čech groupoid U×S5UUU\times_{S^{5}}U\rightrightarrows U over S5S^{5} coming from the open cover by two discs222One should take these as open discs, and so the intersection would be S4×(ε,ε)S^{4}\times(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon); we extend TT to this slightly larger subspace by taking it constant in the direction of the interval. U:=D+DS5U:=D_{+}\coprod D_{-}\to S^{5}. For future notational convenience, write U[2]=U×S5UU^{[2]}=U\times_{S^{5}}U.

Since we now have an explicit Čech cocycle (this is precisely what the above functor is) for FS5FS^{5}, we can talk about lifting this to a Čech cocycle for the 2-group StringSp(1)\operatorname{String}_{Sp(1)}. But what is this? There are many models for String 2-groups, and we shall take the crossed module (ΩSp(1)^PSp(1))(\widehat{\Omega Sp(1)}\to PSp(1)), where PSp(1)PSp(1) is the group of smooth paths [0,1]Sp(1)[0,1]\to Sp(1) based at 1Sp(1)1\in Sp(1), and ΩSp(1)^\widehat{\Omega Sp(1)} is the universal central extension of the subgroup ΩSp(1)PSp(1)\Omega Sp(1)\subset PSp(1) of loops [Bae+07]. Note that the abstract details of what I’m considering doesn’t rely on this choice of model. Notice that (ΩSp(1)^PSp(1))(\widehat{\Omega Sp(1)}\to PSp(1)) comes with a map to the crossed module (1Sp(1))(1\to Sp(1)), and that the former gives rise to a groupoid (which I shall call String(3)\operatorname{String}(3), as Sp(1)Spin(3)Sp(1)\simeq\operatorname{Spin}(3)), namely the action groupoid for ΩSp(1)^\widehat{\Omega Sp(1)} acting on PSp(1)PSp(1) via the given homomorphism, and a 2-groupoid 𝐁String(3)\mathbf{B}\operatorname{String}(3) with a single object (using the 2-group structure). More generally, we can repeat these constructions with any compact, simple, simply connected Lie group GG to get a 2-group StringG\operatorname{String}_{G}. Also, given an inclusion of Lie groups333that induces an isomorphism H3(G,)H3(H,)H^{3}(G,\mathbb{Z})\to H^{3}(H,\mathbb{Z}); the examples listed below all satisfy this, as can be calculated via the long-exact sequence in homotopy. HGH\to G gives an inclusion of Lie 2-groups StringHStringG\operatorname{String}_{H}\to\operatorname{String}_{G}.

In the Čech groupoid U[2]UU^{[2]}\rightrightarrows U we don’t have U[2]U^{[2]} a disjoint union of contractible opens, so we take an open cover VU[2]V\to U^{[2]} where VV is such a disjoint union (or, at least, acyclic enough). Since the non-trivial part of U[2]U^{[2]} is D+D1D_{+}\cap D_{-}\sim\mathbb{HP}^{1}, we will take VV to be the two \mathbb{H} charts +\mathbb{H}_{+} and \mathbb{H}_{-} given by non-vanishing of each of the two homogenous coordinates. Then if we take the fibred product V[2]=V×U[2]VV^{[2]}=V\times_{U^{[2]}}V we get a Lie 2-groupoid V[2]VUV^{[2]}\rightrightarrows V\rightrightarrows U, which I call a truncated globular hypercover.444This may look familiar if you’ve seen bundle 2-gerbes [Ste04] before. The nontrivial component of V[2]V^{[2]} (it contains boring bits like D+D_{+}) is the intersection +=×\mathbb{H}_{+}\cap\mathbb{H}_{-}=\mathbb{H}^{\times}. Notice that if we wanted to use a good open cover then UU would necessarily have had more open sets, and so more overlaps. In some sense we have made a trade-off in the number of open sets and the slight increase in complexity of the description. Also, we can finally see where the two sorts of indices in the cocycle equation above come from: the indices i,j,i,j,\ldots label open sets appearing in UU, and the indices α,β,\alpha,\beta,\ldots label the open sets appearing in VV.

So, finally, a Čech cocycle on S5S^{5} with values in String(3)\operatorname{String}(3) is ‘just’ a 2-functor

(V[2]VU)𝐁String(3).(V^{[2]}\rightrightarrows V\rightrightarrows U)\to\mathbf{B}\operatorname{String}(3).

If we break this down, it is determined by components

VPSp(1)\displaystyle V\to PSp(1)
V[2]ΩPSp(1)^\displaystyle V^{[2]}\to\widehat{\Omega PSp(1)}

and since we have so few open sets in the globular hypercover, functoriality follows automatically. In our particular case, we want the first map to lift the given VU[2]Sp(1)V\to U^{[2]}\to Sp(1).

Recall that VV is (essentially) +\mathbb{H}_{+}\coprod\mathbb{H}_{-}, we define the lift in two parts:

T+(q)\displaystyle T_{+}(q) =(s|q|4s2+2q¯iq|q|4+s2)\displaystyle=\left(s\mapsto\frac{|q|^{4}-s^{2}+2\bar{q}iq}{|q|^{4}+s^{2}}\right)
T(p)\displaystyle T_{-}(p) =(s|p|4s21+2p¯ip|p|4s2+1(sis+i)2)\displaystyle=\left(s\mapsto\frac{|p|^{4}s^{2}-1+2\bar{p}ip}{|p|^{4}s^{2}+1}\cdot\left(\frac{s-i}{s+i}\right)^{2}\right)

To define the remaining component of the 2-functor, we first take the difference of these two maps to get a function ×ΩSp(1)\mathbb{H}^{\times}\to\Omega Sp(1)

TΩ(q)=(s(s+Q)(sQ1)(sQ)(sQ+1)(sis+i)2),where Q=q¯iq.T_{\Omega}(q)=\left(s\mapsto\frac{(s+Q)(sQ-1)}{(s-Q)(sQ+1)}\cdot\left(\frac{s-i}{s+i}\right)^{2}\right),\quad\text{where }Q=\bar{q}iq.

Now we need to lift this map through the projection ΩSp(1)^ΩSp(1)\widehat{\Omega Sp(1)}\to\Omega Sp(1) (this is not a priori possible, but one calculates the possible obstructions and they vanish). To do this, we need a workable description of what ΩSp(1)^\widehat{\Omega Sp(1)} is. There are multiple papers constructing this e.g. [Mic87, Mur88, MS03]. We shall use the description of it as the quotient group

PΩSp(1)U(1)Ω2Sp(1)~\frac{P\Omega Sp(1)\rtimes U(1)}{\widetilde{\Omega^{2}Sp(1)}}

The precise embedding of the simply-connected covering group Ω2Sp(1)~\widetilde{\Omega^{2}Sp(1)} is not important, just that we can represent elements as equivalence classes of pairs consisting of paths in ΩSp(1)\Omega Sp(1) and elements of U(1)U(1).

One calculates the final answer to be as follows. For any q×q\in\mathbb{H}^{\times}, let qtq_{t} be any path (in ×\mathbb{H}^{\times}) 1q1\rightsquigarrow q, and the lift to the central extension is

TΩ^(q)=[TΩ(qt),1].T_{\widehat{\Omega}}(q)=[T_{\Omega}(q_{t}),1].

This is independent of the choice of path and is smooth. This function, together with T±T_{\pm}, defines the Čech cocycle we are interested in. We know that this cocycle is not a coboundary, since geometrically realising everything we get a map S5BString(3)S^{5}\to B\operatorname{String}(3) that picks out the nontrivial class in π5(BString(3))π5(BSpin(3))π4(Spin(3))π4(Sp(1))=/2\pi_{5}(B\operatorname{String}(3))\simeq\pi_{5}(B\operatorname{Spin}(3))\simeq\pi_{4}(\operatorname{Spin}(3))\simeq\pi_{4}(Sp(1))=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}. One can also check (easily, as there are so few open sets involved in the open covers), that these functions satisfy the cocycle equations displayed at the beginning of the notes.

Now this is just one example, and a pretty exceptional example at that, as the dimensions involved are right on the boundary of where the obstructions vanish, not to mention the use of quaternions. One can take a more global approach that leads to many more examples as follows. The total space of the frame bundle FS5FS^{5}, as an Sp(1)Sp(1)-bundle, is nothing other than the homogenous bundle SU(3)SU(3)/Sp(1)=S5SU(3)\to SU(3)/Sp(1)=S^{5}, using the embedding Sp(1)SU(2)SU(3)Sp(1)\simeq SU(2)\to SU(3) as a block matrix. One can calculate that StringSU(3)/String(3)SU(3)/Sp(1)\operatorname{String}_{SU(3)}/\operatorname{String}(3)\simeq SU(3)/Sp(1), so that the underlying groupoid of StringSU(3)\operatorname{String}_{SU(3)} is the ‘total space’ of the String(3)\operatorname{String}(3) bundle. Another way to view this is to consider the transitive StringSU(3)\operatorname{String}_{SU(3)} action on S5S^{5} via the projection to SU(3)SU(3); then String(3)\operatorname{String}(3) is the stabiliser of the basepoint.

This picture generalises to any StringG\operatorname{String}_{G} acting on G/HG/H for H<GH<G, and at this point we can use any model of StringG\operatorname{String}_{G}, including non-strict models, and even 2-groups in differentiable stacks, which have underlying Lie groupoids. There are a number of interesting exceptional examples which should be amenable to the same treatment as above, for instance:

  • StringG2G2/SU(3)=S6\operatorname{String}_{G_{2}}\to G_{2}/SU(3)=S^{6}

  • StringSpin(7)Spin(7)/G2=S7\operatorname{String}_{\operatorname{Spin}(7)}\to\operatorname{Spin}(7)/G_{2}=S^{7}

  • StringSp(2)Sp(2)/Sp(1)=S7\operatorname{String}_{Sp(2)}\to Sp(2)/Sp(1)=S^{7}

  • StringF4F4/Spin(9)=𝕆2\operatorname{String}_{F_{4}}\to F_{4}/\operatorname{Spin}(9)=\mathbb{OP}^{2}

The first three of these have explicit transition functions written down by Püttmann in [Püt11]. 𝕆2\mathbb{OP}^{2} admits a cover by three 16\mathbb{R}^{16} charts, and is 7-connected.

Exercise.

Write down transition functions for the Spin(9)\operatorname{Spin}(9) bundle on 𝕆2\mathbb{OP}^{2}, and lift them to String(9)=StringSpin(9)\operatorname{String}(9)=\operatorname{String}_{\operatorname{Spin}(9)}-valued transition functions using a globular hypercover.

The astute reader will have realised that this method only gives a single example on each homogeneous space with that particular structure group, which in the case of S5S^{5} is ok as there is only one nontrivial String(3)\operatorname{String}(3) bundle. But, for instance, StringSU(3)\operatorname{String}_{SU(3)} bundles on S6S^{6} are classified by an integer (and in fact the example above is a generator). However, using the Eckmann-Hilton argument, one can show that over a sphere Sk+1S^{k+1}, given a GG-bundle with transition function t:SkGt\colon S^{k}\to G representing a generator of gπk(G)g\in\pi_{k}(G), we can obtain the transition functions for the bundles corresponding to elements gng^{n} by taking the pointwise power tn:SkGt^{n}\colon S^{k}\to G for any nn\in\mathbb{Z}. The same will be true for the lifted 2-bundles, where we take pointwise powers of the 2-group-valued functor (V[2]V)StringH(V^{[2]}\rightrightarrows V)\to\operatorname{String}_{H}. Thus, for spheres at least, we can in principle give Čech cocycle descriptions for all String bundles.

As a final note, the abstract picture in the penultimate paragraph is not restricted to smooth geometry: one can equally well take holomorphic 2-groups, assuming one has them. However, in current work with Raymond Vozzo we have found that the basic gerbe on a simple, simply-connected complex reductive Lie group, which is holomorphic [Bry94, Bry00], is also multiplicative, so defines a weak 2-group in complex analytic stacks. This means we can define holomorphic String bundles on complex homogeneous spaces, which can be plugged into the higher twistor correspondence of Saemann-Wolf (eg [SW14]).

References