11
$\begingroup$

I have a (possibly very naive) question: what is the relation between Monopole Floer Homology and Heegaard-Floer theory? (both known and conjectured)

  • Is there some version of Atiyah-Floer conjecture that relates the two theories?

  • Is there some physical explanation to this phenomena?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ arxiv.org/abs/1204.0115 $\endgroup$ – Liviu Nicolaescu Apr 21 '17 at 16:59
  • $\begingroup$ @LiviuNicolaescu Thanks! I guess that answers the question of the relation between them ... is there some physical reason/intuition for it? $\endgroup$ – Nati Apr 21 '17 at 17:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Heegaard Floer homology does not have an $A_\infty$-structure; it's the intersection homology of two different Lagrangians. (You might think you retain a module structure over the cohomology of the Lagrangians, but you lose this in handleslides.) The $A_\infty$-structure on the Fukaya category is useful in proving invariance eg under handleslides. As Chris Gerig says in his answer, the bordered theory does naturally associate an $A_\infty$-algebra to a surface and an $A_\infty$-module to a 3-manifold with boundary, but this is I think somewhat different than the question in your comment. $\endgroup$ – Mike Miller Apr 21 '17 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ Also, Heegaard Floer theory comes from Lagrangian Floer homology so it has an $A_\infty$-structure, does the isomorphism identify it with something similar on the monopole side? $\endgroup$ – Nati Apr 23 '17 at 0:57
6
$\begingroup$

Ozsvath and Szabo constructed HF as a topological interpretation of SWF, and they noticed many links between the two. Roughly speaking, their Euler characteristics are the same, and the analog of the Atiyah-Floer conjecture is thus HF = SWF. As mentioned in the comments, there is a 5-part paper that develops such an equivalence (though still in peer-review phase?). The construction passes through a version of Embedded Contact Homology, a la Taubes' proof SWF = ECH.

Some further motivation/explanation for the equivalence is that Taubes has shown that SW theory on symplectic 4-manifolds is related to $J$-holomorphic curve theory (counts of monopoles are equal to counts of surfaces). During their graduate career, Hutchings and Lee developed a 3-dimensional version of this story: SW theory on 3-manifolds is equal to counts of gradient trajectories of $S^1$-valued Morse functions on 3-manifolds. It's the same spirit as Taubes' proof: Sequences of solutions to (perturbed) SW equations will limit to objects that are localized around flowlines/curves. These equivalences extend down one more dimension, where Taubes started it all: Vortices on surfaces (2-dimensional versions of SW theory) are in bijection with symmetric products of the surfaces. I think that based on this history, i.e. similar in spirit to Taubes' and Hutchings-Lee's construction, Tim Perutz has formulated a precise "Atiyah-Floer conjecture" for HF and SW on 3-manifolds (at least he has described this in recent seminar talks that I attended).

As for your last question in the comments, there is something similar: Bordered Monopole Floer Theory developed by Jon Bloom and John Baldwin (I think still in progress). Their theory uses a finite "generating" set of bordered (i.e. parametrized surface-boundary) handlebodies $\lbrace (H_\alpha,\partial H_\alpha\cong\Sigma)\rbrace$. There is a pairing $\mathcal{C}(Y_1\cup_\Sigma Y_2)\simeq_\text{quasi}\mathcal{C}(Y_1)\tilde{\otimes}_{\mathcal{A}(\Sigma)}\mathcal{C}(Y_2)$ using the $A_\infty$-tensor product, where $\mathcal{A}(\Sigma):=\bigoplus_{\alpha\beta}\widehat{CM}(H_\alpha\cup_\Sigma -H_\beta)$ and $\mathcal{C}(Y):=\bigoplus_\alpha\widehat{CM}(Y\cup_\Sigma -H_\alpha)$.

$\endgroup$

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.