Proving Kähler, finding the Kähler form

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mak182
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Form
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the process of proving Kähler properties of manifolds using specific metrics, particularly the metric provided in the example. The Kähler form is derived as Ω = d(r + u) ∧ dt + d(ru) ∧ dz, which is confirmed to be closed. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of identifying the almost complex structure J and ensuring its integrability to establish the Kähler property. Techniques such as writing the metric in terms of orthonormal frames are recommended for clarity in identifying the complex structure.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kähler manifolds and their properties
  • Familiarity with Riemannian metrics and complex structures
  • Knowledge of differential forms and their operations
  • Proficiency in using Nakahara's text on Kähler geometry
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Kähler form from Riemannian metrics
  • Learn about the integrability conditions for almost complex structures
  • Explore the application of orthonormal frames in complex geometry
  • Investigate examples of Kähler metrics in various geometrical contexts
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students specializing in differential geometry, particularly those interested in Kähler manifolds and complex structures.

Mak182
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi!

I have a question about Kähler manifolds. Of course there are many books (I prefer Nakahara) and lecture notes on this topic, but as a physicist I need a very hands-on way of dealing with metrics, etc.

Given a metric, what is the simplest way to find the Kähler form and to prove the Kähler property? I mean, e.g. Nakahara describes Kähler, but is there something simpler one can do (perhaps just in some cases)?

An example I have encountered is
\begin{equation}
ds^2 = (r-u) \left(\frac{\text d r^2}{F(r)} -\frac{\text d u^2}{G(u)} \right) + \frac{1}{r-u} \left(F(r) (\text d t +u \text d z)^2 - G(u) (\text d t+ r \text d z)^2 \right) ~,
\end{equation}
where $F$ and $G$ may be any functions of one variable. This metric is claimed to be Kähler with Kähler form
\begin{equation}
\Omega = \text d (r+ u) \wedge \text d t + \text d (r u) \wedge \text d z ~,
\end{equation}
which is obviously closed.

Following Nakahara, one needs to change coordinates to make the metric Hermitian, but can the Kähler form be read off more directly?

Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Given a Riemannian metric ##g(X,Y)## and an almost complex structure ##J##, the Kahler form is defined as ##\Omega(X,Y) = g(JX,Y)## (eq (8.55) in Nakahara). The Kahler form will be closed if the almost complex structure is covariantly constant in the Riemannian metric. I'm not sure what complex structure is being used in the example you gave, but it's probably straightforward, if tedious, to work it out.
 
Adding to what fzero said: You first need to find the complex structure and show that it is integrable. For a generic metric, this might be rather non-obvious. But in most actual applications, the metric is written in such a way that the complex structure is easy to see.

What one does, generally, is to write the metric in terms of orthonormal frames. Then you know that the almost-complex structure must simply rotate these frames. In your example, the metric is already a sum of four squares, so the hard work is already done.

Looking at your metric, it can have signature (++++), (++--), or (----), depending on the signs of F and G. In order to apply complex geometry, you must group things in pairs that have the same signature. So the two terms with ##F(r)## in front go together, and the two terms with ##G(u)## go together. From here it should be easy to postulate an almost-complex structure J. Then you apply standard techniques to show that J is integrable.

Finally, given J, the Kahler form is well-defined.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K