Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 24th 2011

    I have added a little bit to supermanifold, mainly the definition as manifolds over superpoints, the statement of the equivalence to the locally-ringed-space definition and references.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2011
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2020

    added publication data to

    diff, v40, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2020

    added pointer to

    diff, v41, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2020
    • (edited Jul 19th 2020)

    added pointer to

    for discussion of the functorial geometry-perspective

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023

    So what’s the precise differente/relationship between using supermanifolds and manifolds with spin bundles to describe fermionic fields? I understand that, strictly speaking, the former is about fermionic fields (i.e. anti-commuting fields) whereas the latter is about spinors (of a particular representation), and that these are related by the spin-statistics theorem, but what is the concrete connection between these two approaches? Given a spinor bundle one can take exterior powers and construct a supermanifold in the spirit of Batchelor’s theorem (well, it should be a supermanifold with Spin group action), but what about the converse? The latter theorem is only about vector bundles, it doesn’t care about these being associated vector bundles to a Spin principal bundle.

    In particular, say in the NSR string when we speak of requiring a manifold to admit a spin structure, does this mean in the GS string to require the supermanifold to be isomorphic to the exterior power of some spinor bundle?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023
    • (edited Oct 25th 2023)

    On the first part: Yes, supermanifolds as such are about having graded-commutative algebras of smooth functions. That these have a Spin-action is a separate requirement.

    In general, the math-literature tends to use “super” for anything “/2\mathbb{Z}/2-graded-commutative”, while the physics literature uses it much more specifically for “graded-skew extension of a Poincaré-symmetry group (or of a conformal group).

    On the last question: Not sure I understand exactly what you are asking. The point to notice is that for the NSR-string the worldsheet is a supermanifold, while target spacetime is an ordinary manifold, while for the GS-string it is the other way around. (In the “super-embedding formalism” both worldvolume and target-space are supermanifolds.)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023

    So is the Spin-action requirement on a supermanifold essentially that it is modeled not on some random R^{n|m} but on some R^{n|N} for N some Spin representation?

    Also, thanks for the super-embedding formalism pointer, clarified a lot.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023

    Yes!

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023

    Okay, that makes sense. But then what’s the analogous statement for the other elements in the SO tower? I’m guessing not a lot can be said about this yet since even the definition of stringor bundle is recent, but maybe I’m wrong. I imagine one would construct spaces whose probes are not vector bundles over Cartesian spaces (i.e. super Cartesian spaces) but algebra bundles over Cartesian spaces for the String analog?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023
    • (edited Oct 25th 2023)

    By the way, the super-embedding approach indeed seems to get at the heart of the matter.

    In Prop. 6.10 on p. 63 here we observe that the GS-action functional for the super pp-branes without worldvolume gauge fields (hence including the M2 but not the M5) are just the super-volume forms on the super-embedded worldvolume. So this makes them exactly the super-analog of the Nambu-Goto action that one may have hoped for all along.

    Regarding pairing higher spin geometry with supergeometry: I see what you have in mind here. Some kind of higher super-geometry with rings of functions given by higher analogs of superalgebras.

    There is nothing known about this, and next to nobody has considered this. The only exception is Kapranov 2013 suggesting that the higher gradings of higher supergeometry ought to be controlled by the sphere spectrum, and then my proposal for a definition of “spectral super-scheme” here, along the lines of an observation earlier made by Rezk 2009.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2023

    Are stringors not what would make a natural formulation of super string field theory?