A Cohomology and fermions in supersymmetry

kakaho345
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdASx74y7oI&list=PL7aXC0jU4Qk7K778c5nmgQImd6VKKFMYu&index=9&ab_channel=KRaviteja
1:03:00
Hirosi claims that the hamiltonian hibert space corresponds to the cohomology on the manifold. I don't understand why
Hello,
I have been looking at some differential geometry and watching Hirosi's video lecture online:

At 1:03:00, I found that they claimed that there is a correspondence between the Hibert space of the symmetric Hamiltonian and the cohomology of the manifold.
I am super new to the subject and this is the best I can describe the problem. Would anyone explain to me why that correspondence is true?

If possible, can anyone point me to some lecture videos that explain in more details and clearer? I feel like Hirosi is teaching too fast for me.
(I know Nakahara is an excellent reference, but I am still finding for more resources.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I probably misunderstood your question because I haven't watched the first one hour of the lecture and the previous seven lectures, so ignore my answer if it is off the mark. What he says is that by Hodge theorem (he doesn't say the theorem, but he probably covered it somewhere in the first lectures) a cohomology class is represented by a harmonic form i.e. a zero of the Laplacian. On the other hand the ground states are the zero energy states, which I guess amounts to the same thing.
 
martinbn said:
I probably misunderstood your question because I haven't watched the first one hour of the lecture and the previous seven lectures, so ignore my answer if it is off the mark. What he says is that by Hodge theorem (he doesn't say the theorem, but he probably covered it somewhere in the first lectures) a cohomology class is represented by a harmonic form i.e. a zero of the Laplacian. On the other hand the ground states are the zero energy states, which I guess amounts to the same thing.
I see, thanks for replying. Your answer is super relevant and helpful. He didn't explicitly stated Hodge theorem, but he did talked about the Harmonic forms previously.

For future people interested, it is in his lecture 3 when he talks about representatives of cohomologies.
He mentioned the codifferential ##\delta## and the Laplacian ##\Delta = \delta d + d \delta## and that we can choose a solution requiring ##d\omega = 0## and it implies ##\Delta \omega = 0##, hence ##d\omega = 0## implying an element in the cohomology implies also a member of the harmonic form ##\Delta \omega = 0##. And the Hamiltonian is exactly the Laplacian. Hence proven the claim.

Then of course, I need to review why the Hamiltonian is the Laplacian.
The lecture did not show in details, but the general idea is that one can identify some supercharge ##Q# and ##Q^\bar## from the Lagrangian, and those supercharge are identified with ##\delta## and ##d##. And the anticommutator between the differential gets you the Hamiltonian.

P.S. anyone know why my latex code does not work properly?
 
Last edited:
kakaho345 said:
I see, thanks for replying. Your answer is super relevant and helpful. He didn't explicitly stated Hodge theorem, but he did talked about the Harmonic forms previously.

For future people interested, it is in his lecture 3 when he talks about representatives of cohomologies.
He mentioned the codifferential ##\delta## and the Laplacian ##\Delta = \delta d + d \delta## and that we can choose a solution requiring ##d\omega = 0## and it implies ##\Delta \omega = 0##, hence ##d\omega = 0## implying an element in the cohomology implies also a member of the harmonic form ##\Delta \omega = 0##. And the Hamiltonian is exactly the Laplacian. Hence proven the claim.

Then of course, I need to review why the Hamiltonian is the Laplacian.
The lecture did not show in details, but the general idea is that one can identify some supercharge ##Q## and ##\bar{Q}## from the Lagrangian, and those supercharge are identified with ##\delta## and ##d##. And the anticommutator between the differential gets you the Hamiltonian.
 
This is an alert about a claim regarding the standard model, that got a burst of attention in the past two weeks. The original paper came out last year: "The electroweak η_W meson" by Gia Dvali, Archil Kobakhidze, Otari Sakhelashvili (2024) The recent follow-up and other responses are "η_W-meson from topological properties of the electroweak vacuum" by Dvali et al "Hiding in Plain Sight, the electroweak η_W" by Giacomo Cacciapaglia, Francesco Sannino, Jessica Turner "Astrophysical...
In LQG and LQC there are solutions called "black to white transition". I'll add some references: (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.07251 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03872 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06330 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.04264 (Rovelli)https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12823 https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.02691 https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.07589 https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01788 https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.12646 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03027...
Hello everyone, I am seeking to better understand the conceptual foundations and potential consequences of "Two-Time Physics" (2T-physics), as developed by Itzhak Bars and others. My interest was sparked by a recent paper that attempts to explain anomalous results in particle physics (apparent superluminal propagation of virtual photons) within the framework of 2T-physics: Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.02696 Key quote from the abstract: *"...the problem... can be solved naturally...

Similar threads

Back
Top