Twistor question the link holomorphic vector bundles and anti self dual guage

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between holomorphic vector bundles and anti self-dual gauges in the context of twistor theory, particularly focusing on an equation related to electromagnetism and the implications of spinor norms within this framework.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an equation involving spinors and questions the implications of the nullity of the spinor norm on the validity of the equation in the context of anti self-dual gauges.
  • Another participant agrees with the nullity of certain spinor products but questions the validity of a specific equality involving different indices.
  • A later post clarifies the equation but reiterates that the nullity of the spinor product is always true.
  • Another participant discusses the significance of the operator defined in the context of establishing correspondences between self and anti self-dual fields and functions on twistor space, suggesting that functions must be annihilated by a specific vector field to maintain this correspondence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the nullity of certain spinor products, but there is disagreement regarding the implications of these products on the equations discussed. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the significance of the operator and its role in the correspondence between different mathematical structures.

Contextual Notes

The discussion involves complex mathematical structures and assumptions that may not be fully articulated, particularly regarding the definitions and properties of the operators and bundles involved.

Jim Kata
Messages
198
Reaction score
10
Hi, I was working through a Twistor paper and it was explaining the link between holomorphic vector bundles and anti self dual gauges and it had an equation like this, for electro-magnetism.

[tex]\lambda^a \lambda^b(\frac{\partial A_{b\dot{b}}}{\partial x^{a\dot{a}}}-\frac{\partial A_{a\dot{a}}}{\partial x^{b\dot{b}}})=\lambda^a \lambda^b\epsilon_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\bar{\Phi_{ab}}=0[/tex] I can derive this equation, but what bothers me about it is the spinors. Namely, that [tex]\lambda^a \lambda^b\epsilon_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}[/tex] always equals zero so doesn't imply that [tex]\frac{\partial A_{b\dot{b}}}{\partial x^{a\dot{a}}}-\frac{\partial A_{a\dot{a}}}{\partial x^{b\dot{b}}}=\epsilon_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\bar{\Phi_{ab}}=0[/tex] Even though this is equation is true. What I"m saying is the first equation is true regardless if the gauge is anti selfdual because of the nullity of the spinor norm. So why do they define [tex]\bar{\partial}=\lambda^a\frac{\partial}{x^{a\dot{a}}}[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree that

[tex]\lambda^a\lambda^b\epsilon_{ab} = 0[/tex]

and

[tex]\lambda^{\dot{a}}\lambda^{\dot{b}}\epsilon_{\dot{a}\dot{b}} = 0[/tex]

but there's no reason for

[tex]\lambda^{{a}}\lambda^{{b}}\epsilon_{\dot{a}\dot{b}} = 0[/tex]

to be true is there ?
 
Sorry, I'm a little toasty.

What i meant to write is:

[tex]\lambda^a \lambda^b(\frac{\partial A_{b\dot{b}}}{\partial x^{a\dot{a}}}-\frac{\partial A_{a\dot{a}}}{\partial x^{b\dot{b}}})=\lambda^a \lambda^b\epsilon_{ab}\bar{\Phi_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}}= 0[/tex]

but [tex]\lambda^a \lambda^b\epsilon_{ab} =0[/tex] is always true
 
Jim Kata said:
So why do they define [tex]\bar{\partial}=\lambda^a\frac{\partial}{x^{a\dot{a}}}[/tex]


I can't be sure without seeing the paper you're reading but I think the significance of the operator

[tex]\lambda^a\partial_{a\dot{a}}[/tex]

usually comes about when you're establishing the correspondance between self and anti self dual zero rest mass fields and (equivalence classes of) functions on twistor space. The correspondance is established by using the fact that the spin bundle (with coordinates [itex](x^{a\dot{a}}, \lambda^a)[/itex]) is a bundle over spacetime when you fibre it one way, and a bundle over twistor space when you fibre it another way. Functions defined on the spin bundle i.e. functions [itex]f(x^{a\dot{a}}, \lambda^a)[/itex] reduce to functions on twistor space if they're constant along the twistor space fibration. To satisfy this, they have to be annihilated by the vector field [itex]\lambda^a\partial_{a\dot{a}}[/itex] on the spin bundle. If this is true, then they're not just any old functions [itex]f(x^{a\dot{a}}, \lambda^a)[/itex], but rather they're functions of the form [itex]f(ix^{a\dot{a}}\lambda_{a}, \lambda^a)[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 175 ·
6
Replies
175
Views
28K