Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

5

2

Let $(M,g)$ be a riemannian manifold and let $P\to M$ be a principal $G$-bundle with connection $A$. Let $\alpha \in \Omega^1(M;\mathrm{ad}P)$ be a one-form on $M$ with values in the adjoint bundle $\mathrm{ad} P$. Then consider the equation $$ F_{A + \alpha} = \tfrac12 [\alpha,\alpha] $$ in $\Omega^2(M;\mathrm{ad}P)$, where $F_{A+ \alpha}$ is the curvature of the connection $A + \alpha$.

This equation is reminiscent of the Hitchin equations on a Riemann surface, but of course is different.

(In the context in which I have seen this equation, it is supplemented by the condition $\nabla^A \alpha \in \Omega^2(M;\mathrm{ad}P)$, which is equivalent to the vanishing of the symmetrisation of $\nabla^A \alpha$.)

Question

Has anyone come across such an equation before? And if so, could you point me to a reference?

edited Jul 13 2011 at 14:15

asked Jul 11 2011 at 23:15

José Figueroa-O'Farrill
19k●2●31●93

	Since $F_{A+\alpha}=F_A + d_A\alpha + \frac{1}{2}[\alpha,\alpha]$, you mean $F_A + d_A\alpha=-[\alpha,\alpha]$, right? And did you mean supplemented by $d_A\alpha=0$? i.e. you dont mean just the second order obstruction to deforming a flat connection? – Paul Jul 12 2011 at 20:26
	@Paul: Perhaps I should have written the original version of the equation, which is $F_A + \nabla_A \alpha = 0$, whereas $d_A \alpha$ is the skew-symmetrisation of $\nabla^A\alpha$. In other words, the equation breaks up into two: $F_A + d_A \alpha = 0$ and the vanishing of the symmetrisation of $\nabla^A \alpha$. Does this make more sense? – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Jul 12 2011 at 22:51
	$\nabla_A$ above should be $\nabla^A$. (I continue to wish I could easily edit comments.) – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Jul 12 2011 at 22:51
	I'm still confused by the sign: $F_A+d_A\alpha=0$ is the same as $F_A+d_A\alpha+\frac{1}{2}[\alpha,\alpha]=\frac{1}{2}[\alpha,\alpha]$ which in turn is $F_{A+\alpha}=\frac{1}{2}[\alpha,\alpha]$. In any case, I've never seen this. (As you probably know) if $A$ is flat, then $d_A\alpha=0$ is the first obstruction to $A+t\alpha$ being a path of flat connections and $[\alpha,\alpha]=2d_A\alpha$ is the second obstruction. Maybe the other equation is hidden form of some gauge-fixing condition? (are you on a 2-manifold? can you relate d_A^*\alpha=0$ to $Sym(\nabla^A\alpha=0)$?) – Paul Jul 13 2011 at 3:31
	Ah... my apologies. The sign is wrong! I must have copied it wrong. I'll edit. – José Figueroa-O'Farrill Jul 13 2011 at 14:15

show 1 more comment

Has anyone seen this Hitchin-like system?

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.