New Journal: Quantum Topology June 26, 2009
Posted by Noah Snyder in good journals, hopf algebras, link homology, planar algebras, subfactors, tqft.1 comment so far
The European Math Society Publishing House (a non-profit publishing company which also publishes the Journal of the EMS, CMH, and half a dozen other journals) just announced a new journal: Quantum Topology. I think this is very exciting as it fills a nice hole in the existing journal options. The list of main topics include knot polynomials, TQFT, fusion categories, categorification, and subfactors. So there should be lots of material of interest to people here.
Extended TFTs May 13, 2009
Posted by Chris Schommer-Pries in Paper Advertisement, QFT, Shamelss Self Promotion, differential geometry, low-dimensional topology, mathematical physics, tqft, websites.10 comments
So I’ve finally managed to bang my dissertation into something more or less ready for public consumption. It is basically finished (except for some typos and spell checking).
It is available on my new website.
The title is “The Classification of Two-Dimensional Extended Topological Field Theories”.
Lurie on TFTs January 15, 2009
Posted by Chris Schommer-Pries in Algebraic Topology, QFT, groupoids, tqft.2 comments
This morning Jacob Lurie posted a draft of an expository paper on his work (with Mike Hopkins) classifying extended (infinity, n)-categorical topological field theories and their relation to the Baez-Dolan cobordism hypothesis.
Should make for some intersting bedtime reading…
TQFTs via Planar Algebras (Part 3) December 10, 2008
Posted by Chris Schommer-Pries in Pictorial Algebra, QFT, low-dimensional topology, planar algebras, quantum algebra, subfactors, talks, tqft.add a comment
This is the third and final post in my series about using planar algebras to construct TQFTs. In the first post we looked at the 2D case and came up with a master strategy for constructing TQFTs. In the last post we began carrying out that strategy in the 3-dimensional setting, but ran into some difficulties. In this post we will overcome those difficulties and build a TQFT.
TQFTs via Planar Algebras (Part 2) December 6, 2008
Posted by Chris Schommer-Pries in Pictorial Algebra, QFT, low-dimensional topology, planar algebras, subfactors, talks, tqft.5 comments
In my last post I explained a strategy for using n-dimensional algebraic objects to construct (n+1)-dimensional TQFTs, and I went through the n=1 case: Showing how a semi-simple symmetric Frobenius algebra gives rise to a 2-dimensional TQFT. But then I had to disappear and go give my talk. I didn’t make it to the punchline, which is how planar algebras can give rise to 3D TQFTs!
In this post I will start explaining the 3D part of the talk. I won’t be able to finish before I run out of steam; that will have to wait for another post. But I will promise to use lots of pretty pictures!
TQFTs via Planar Algebras December 5, 2008
Posted by Chris Schommer-Pries in Pictorial Algebra, QFT, low-dimensional topology, planar algebras, subfactors, talks, tqft.7 comments
So today I am giving a talk in the Subfactor seminar here at Berkeley, and I thought it might by nice to write my pre-talk notes here on the blog, rather then on pieces of paper destined for the recycling bin.
This talk is about how you can use Planar algebras planar techniques to construct 3D topological quantum field theories (TQFTs) and is supposed to be introductory. We’ve discussed planar algebras on this blog here and here.
So the first order of buisness: What is a TQFT?
New Photograph March 25, 2008
Posted by A.J. Tolland in low-dimensional topology, papers, quantum algebra, talks, tqft.38 comments
Last Friday, we had a seminar at Berkeley — or rather, at Noah’s house — featuring Mike Freedman and some quantity of beer. Mike spoke about some of the hurdles he had to overcome in writing his recent paper with Danny Calegari and Kevin Walker. One of the main results of this paper is that there is a “complexity function” c, which maps from the set of closed 3-manifolds to an ordered set, and that this function satisfies the “topological” Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.
Here, and
are 3-manifolds with boundary
. [EDIT: and equality is only achieved if
] This inequality looks like the sort of things you might derive from topological field theory, using the fact that
. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to actually derive this sort of theorem from any well-understood TQFT, thanks to an old theorem of Vafa’s, which states roughly, that there’s always two 3-manifolds related by a Dehn twist that a given rational TQFT can’t distinguish. Mike speculated that non-rational TQFT might be able to do the trick, but what he and his collaborators actually did was an end run around the TQFT problem. They simply proved that that the function
exists.
I tell you all this, not because I’m about to explain what is, but to explain our new banner picture. We realized after the talk that there were a fair number of us Secret Blogging Seminarians in one place, and that we ought to take a photo.
Geometric Langlands from a TQFT perspective February 27, 2008
Posted by Joel Kamnitzer in Algebraic Geometry, geometric Langlands, tqft.13 comments
In my continuing attempts to clear the backlog in my brain, I would like to tell you about the talks of Nadler and Gukov from Miami workshop which I was at a month ago. (Actually I really want to tell you about Kontsevich’s talks but I don’t think that I understand them well enough to do that.)
Ever since the work of Kapustin and Witten a couple of years ago, a TQFT interpretation of geometric Langlands has been available. However, I had never “internalized” it until these talks. It gives a nice conceptual picture which makes some constructions in geometric Langlands less mysterious and hopefully makes the whole subject a bit more accessible.
In this view of things, geometric Langlands concerns the equality of two 4D TQFTs, which will denote by A and B. A and B both depend on the choice of a semisimple algebraic group G. Or more precisely, if we want A = B, then we should have A depending on G and B depending on its Langlands dual group . They are 4D TQFTs, so they assign a number to a (closed) 4-manifold, a vector space to a 3-manifold, a category to a 2-manifold etc and related morphisms to bordisms of such objects.
I will start with a 2-manifold C. The first surprise is that A(C) and B(C) depend on more than just a topological structure for C — in particular we assume that C is actually endowed with the structure of smooth projective algebraic curve. Then we define and
. Here
is the moduli space of algebraic principal G bundles on C and
is the moduli space of algebraic principal
bundles with connection on C. To continue the explanation, D-mod means the category of modules for the sheaf of differential operators (equivalently the category of perverse sheaves) and QCoh means the category of quasi-coherent sheaves.
Liveblogging: Jacob Lurie on 2-d TQFT February 20, 2008
Posted by Noah Snyder in Category Theory, blog triumphalism, liveblogging, talks, tqft.4 comments
We seem to still get a lot of google searches for this post. Jacob has an expository article out now that does a much better job of addressing this material than my liveblogging. You should read that paper instead.
Jacob Lurie is in town giving two topology talks. The first one is on classifying 2-d extended TQFT (a topic near and dear to my heart), and the second is a more leisurely introduction to extended 2-dimensional TQFTs . As is often the case when Jacob is in town, the room is rather packed.
At the moment I’m liveblogging the second talk, for the first talk go past the flip.
Jacobs 2nd talk is starting now, and since Peter Teichner just described it as “the talk where you start from the beginning” I’m going to try to continue the liveblogging, and hopefully it’ll make the earlier talk make more sense.
In this talk, Jacob is describing his joint work with Mike Hopkins on extended TQFT inspired by Kevin Costello’s papers.
Jacob starts off recalling Atiyah’s celebrated definition that an n-dimensional TQFT is a tensor functor from nCob to complex vector spaces. The “functor” part here means that gluing cobordisms corresponds to composition of linear maps. The “tensor” part says that .
Then he recalls the well-known result that 2-dimensional TQFTs are classified by Frobenius algebras. To see this, you first consider the vector space assigned to a circle. Then a pair of pants gives a multiplication on this space, and a disc gives a trace. Using the relations between cobordisms you can see that these algebraic structures fit together to make a Frobenius algebra.
The moral of this story is that we should understand n-dimensional TQFT you want to understand it on some simple pieces, and then take your manifold and chop it up into those simple pieces. This is nice, but unfortunately you can’t chop things too finely. You aren’t allowed to chop it up in ways that have corners. This suggests another definition.
Definition: An extended TQFT (in dimension n) is a rule
- closed n-manifold –> complex number
- closed (n-1)-manifold –> vector space
- bordism of (n-1)-manfiold –> map of vector spaces
- closed (n-2)-manifold –> linear category
- bordism (n-2)-manifold –> linear functor
- …
The “…” is not intended to mean that it is easy to keep going, only that you’re meant to try. But since we’re only talking about low-dimensional topology and “here low means ” we don’t really need to understand the “…”.
This definition can be summarized as “An extended TQFT is a functor between n-categories.”
At this point there’s a bit of a digression in which Rob Kirby wants to know why we should think about this hard problem of what an n-category is when we don’t have any examples in dimensions above 3. Jacob says “I’m the wrong man to ask, I only understand what’s going on in dimension less than 2.”
After that digression he moves on to describe the Baez-Dolan Cobordism Hypothesis (paraphrased by Jacob): “Extended TQFTs are “easy to describe/construct.” Elaborating a bit further he says that you only need to describe the TQFT on very small building blocks, and then n-category theory will do all the work for you. Rather than making the conjecture more precise he’s going to give examples where the conjecture is known to hold.
(non-)example (n=2): We restrict our attention to a smaller category where we only allow certain bordisms allowed by string topology based on some manifold M. To a circle we assign the homology of the loop space on M. To a pair of pants we assign the Chas-Sullivan product on homology. (To a disc we don’t get anything, since that’s a bordism that isn’t allowed.)
But rather than just assigning homology, we’d rather assign the chain complex itself. Unfortunately given a bordism you only get a chain homotopy between the corresponding complexes. Nonetheless we can cook up out of this more operations on F(circle) associated to higher homology of Bord(M,N).
A better way to restate this is that Bord(M,N) = Map(F(M), F(N)) where the latter space of chain complexes is thought of as a topological space. So our TQFT here is actually a functor of -categories! That is the 2-morphism spaces aren’t just a set, they’re actually topological spaces, and the functor respects this topological structure.
Now we get down to the question at hand. Define the monoidal -category 2Bord defined by
- The objects of 2Bord are oriented (compact) 0-manifolds
- The morphisms of 2Bord are bordisms between 0-manifolds
- The space of 2-morphisms from f to g is the classifying space of bordisms from f to g which are trivial on their boundary
We want to classify tensor functors from this -category to other
-categories. By Baez-Dolan we should expect this question to have an easy answer: all we need to know is where a point goes!
A point corresponds to some object C. The point with the opposite orientation corresponds to a dual to C (using a line segment as the map), so we need to require that C be dualizable. Then we can figure out where a circle goes just by making the circle out of two segments. So the circle goes to the “dimension” of C, which is an element of End(C).
This is already enough to classify 1-dimensional extended TQFTs! Exciting. Now we need to figure out how to promote 1-dim extended TQFTs to 2-dimensional ones.
So where is a disc going to go? Well, it must land in . Using the circle action on dim C (given by the circle action on the circle) we know that the disc lands in the circle fixed points of
.
The punchline is that this is all that you need to know. The only data is a dualizable object and a circle fixed point in . You may need to check lots of relations, but you don’t need any more data than that.
This fact allows Jacob to give a quick description of string topology, and a proof that it is homotopy invariant. Since I don’t understand string topology, I’ll stop here.