Let $W$ be the canonical $\operatorname{Spin}^\mathbb{C}$ spinor bundle on a symplectic 4-manifold $(M, \omega)$, with a compatible $J$ and $g$, so \begin{equation} {W_ + } = {T^{0,0}}{M^*} \oplus {T^{0,2}}{M^*}, \;\;\;... \end{equation} and the determinant line bundle $L = T^{0,2}M^*$.

Now I want to define a connection on $W$. I learn about basic general theory on spinor bundle, and it says a connection on $W$ consists of the Levi-civita connection $\nabla_g$ and a connection $A$ on $L$. In particular, after I have a $\nabla_g$, I still need to saparately define the $A$, which does not induce from $\nabla_g$.

But I see in Sergeev's lecture on Vortex and Seiberg-Witten equations, that in the case of $(M, \omega, J, g)$ one can modify $\nabla_g$ by adding a term with Nijenhuis tensor to give a connection to $L = T^{0,2}M^*$, and therefore a full connection on $W$.

  1. Am I right about the general theory that connection $A$ on $L$ is not prescribed by $g$-connection?

  2. In the special case of canonical $\operatorname{Spin}^\mathbb{C}$-bundle on $(M, \omega, J, g)$, is $\nabla_g$ prescribing a canonical connection on $L$, contrasting with the general theory?

  • $\begingroup$ If $T^{0,2}M^*$ means what I think, it is not a line bundle. $\endgroup$ – abx Apr 1 '14 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @abx: Sorry, I forgot to say $M$ is four-dimensional. $\endgroup$ – Lelouch Apr 1 '14 at 16:14
  1. You're correct that in general there is no natural choice of a reference $\mathrm{Spin}^c$ connection on an arbitrary manifold.

  2. The reason there is a natural choice of a $\mathrm{Spin}^c$ connection on a symplectic $4$-manifold $(M, \omega)$ is that there is an isomorphism $$W^+ = \wedge^{0,0} T^\ast M \oplus \wedge^{0,2} T^\ast M \cong \varepsilon_{\mathbb{C}} \oplus K^{-1},$$ where $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{C}}$ is the trivial complex line bundle over $M$ and $K = \wedge^2_{\mathbb{C}} T^\ast M$ is the canonical bundle of $(M,J)$. The Levi-Civita connection on $(M,g)$ induces a canonical connection on $K^{-1}$, and we can have the connection on the $\varepsilon_{\mathbb{C}}$ factor be the trivial connection. In this was the Levi-Civita gives rise to a canonical choice of connection on the canonical spinor bundle of a symplectic manifold.

One place you can see the derivation of the natural connection on $K^{-1}$ is Lemma 4.4 (Lemma 4.5 computes the corresponding Dirac operator) of An Introduction to the Seiberg-Witten Equations on Symplectic Manifolds by Hutchings and Taubes.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. I came across Lemma 4.4 before but was not able to fully appreciate the importance. I'll try again. $\endgroup$ – Lelouch Apr 2 '14 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ The Lemma 4.4 says it wants to prove there is a $A_0$ such that ${\nabla _{\mathbf{A}_0}} u_0 \in \Omega^1(X, K^{-1})$; should it be trying to prove ${\nabla _{\mathbf{A}_0}} u_0 = 0 \in \Omega^1(X, K^{-1}) $? $\endgroup$ – Lelouch Apr 2 '14 at 2:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.