ScalingStacks

3.1. First order approximate metric [041Y]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

3.1. First order approximate metric

We plan to construct an approximate Calabi-Yau metric using the generalised Gibbons-Hawking ansatz, on a singular T2T^{2}-bundle M+M^{+} over an open neighbourhood of the origin inside the real 4-dimensional base ℝμ1,μ22×(S1×ℝ)η\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times(S^{1}\times\mathbb{R})_{\eta}, whose discriminant locus is

𝔇=𝔇1∪𝔇2∪𝔇3∪{0}={μ1=0,μ2>0}∪{μ2=0,μ1>0}∪{μ1=μ2<0}∪{0}⊂ℝμ1,μ22×{0}⊂ℝμ1,μ22×(S1×ℝ)η.\begin{split}\mathfrak{D}&=\mathfrak{D}_{1}\cup\mathfrak{D}_{2}\cup\mathfrak{D}_{3}\cup\{0\}=\{\mu_{1}=0,\mu_{2}>0\}\cup\{\mu_{2}=0,\mu_{1}>0\}\cup\{\mu_{1}=\mu_{2}<0\}\cup\{0\}\\ &\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times\{0\}\subset\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times(S^{1}\times\mathbb{R})_{\eta}.\end{split}

Here η=x+−1​y\eta=x+\sqrt{-1}y is a complex variable with period 1. The topological situation is described in Section 1.1.3, Example 1.9 and the expected complex structure can be found in Section 1.1.6.

This situation has very strong similarity with the Taub-NUT type metric on ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3} in Chapter 2, the only difference being the periodicity condition on η\eta. The basic heuristic idea is to perturb the constant solution (cf. Example 1.6) after incorporating the topology. The information in the constant solution is encoded by the base metric

(3.1) ga=ai​j​d​μi⊗d​μj+A​|d​η|2g_{a}=a_{ij}d\mu_{i}\otimes d\mu_{j}+A|d\eta|^{2}

with ai​ja_{ij} being a real symmetric positive definite matrix and A=detaA=\det a, analogous to Section 2.1. We call ai​ja_{ij} the coupling constants and emphasize that ai​ja_{ij} are parameters we would like to vary. We impose the scale invariant ellipticity bound

(3.2) C−1​A1/2​δi​j≤ai​j≤C​A1/2​δi​j,A≫1.C^{-1}A^{1/2}\delta_{ij}\leq a_{ij}\leq CA^{1/2}\delta_{ij},\quad A\gg 1.

The A≫1A\gg 1 assumption is essential for the perturbative way of thinking to be effective; this assumption was absent in the ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3} case because there was no intrinsic scale provided by periodicity. The appearance of the gluing parameter AA means we need to carefully track down AA-dependence in our estimates; in this Chapter all constants in estimates depend on ai​ja_{ij} only through the above scale invariant ellipticity constant unless stated otherwise.

Notation.

We denote μ→=(μ1,μ2,η)\vec{\mu}=(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta) and |μ→|a=ai​j​μi​μj+A​|η|2|\vec{\mu}|_{a}=\sqrt{a_{ij}\mu_{i}\mu_{j}+A|\eta|^{2}} is the gag_{a}-distance to the origin. A variant ϱ=|(μ1,μ2,y)|a′=ai​j​μi​μj+A​y2\varrho=|(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},y)|_{a}^{\prime}=\sqrt{a_{ij}\mu_{i}\mu_{j}+Ay^{2}} stands for the distance in the ga′g_{a}^{\prime}-metric on ℝμ1,μ22×ℝy\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times\mathbb{R}_{y}

(3.3) ga′=ai​j​d​μi​d​μj+A​d​y2=ai​j​d​μi​d​μj+A​|d​Im​(η)|2.g_{a}^{\prime}=a_{ij}d\mu_{i}d\mu_{j}+Ady^{2}=a_{ij}d\mu_{i}d\mu_{j}+A|d\text{Im}(\eta)|^{2}.

Another useful length parameter is ℓ=distga(⋅,𝔇)+A−1/4\ell=\text{dist}_{g_{a}}(\cdot,\mathfrak{D})+A^{-1/4} which is relevant for regularity scales.

Exactly the same discussions as in Section 2.1 lead us to consider the linearised equations (2.2)(2.3)(2.4), which describe the first order corrections we need to make to the constant solution. The key difference is the periodicity requirement. The principle of superposition allows us to immediately produce the solution from Proposition 2.2. We recall from there the functions α1,α2,α3\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}.

Proposition 3.1.

We define the functions α~i​(μ1,μ2,η)\tilde{\alpha}_{i}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta) by

(3.4) {α~1=α1​(μ1,μ2,η)+∑n∈ℤ∖{0}{α1​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a22}α~2=α2​(μ1,μ2,η)+∑n∈ℤ∖{0}{α2​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a11}α~3=α3​(μ1,μ2,η)+∑n∈ℤ∖{0}{α3​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a11+2​a12+a22}\begin{cases}\tilde{\alpha}_{1}=\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)+\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}}\{\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{22}}}\}\\ \tilde{\alpha}_{2}=\alpha_{2}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)+\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}}\{\alpha_{2}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{11}}}\}\\ \tilde{\alpha}_{3}=\alpha_{3}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)+\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}}\{\alpha_{3}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{11}+2a_{12}+a_{22}}}\}\end{cases}

Then α~1,α~2,α~3\tilde{\alpha}_{1},\tilde{\alpha}_{2},\tilde{\alpha}_{3} are convergent away from 𝔇\mathfrak{D}, 1-periodic in η\eta, and Δa\Delta_{a}-harmonic away from 𝔇\mathfrak{D}. Morever the functions

v~11=α~1+α~3,v~22=α~2+α~3,v~12=v~21=−α~3,w~=A​ai​j​v~i​j\tilde{v}^{11}=\tilde{\alpha}_{1}+\tilde{\alpha}_{3},\quad\tilde{v}^{22}=\tilde{\alpha}_{2}+\tilde{\alpha}_{3},\quad\tilde{v}^{12}=\tilde{v}^{21}=-\tilde{\alpha}_{3},\quad\tilde{w}=Aa^{ij}\tilde{v}^{ij}

provide a solution in the periodic setting to (2.2)(2.3) away from 𝔇\mathfrak{D}, which also solves the distributional equation (2.4) globally.

Proof.

The only issue worth checking is convergence, which follows from the fact that |α1​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a22|≤C⁡(ai​j,μ1,μ2,η)n2|\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{22}}}|\leq\frac{C(a_{ij},\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)}{n^{2}}, and likewise for α2,α3\alpha_{2},\alpha_{3}. ∎

We obtain by the generalised Gibbons-Hawking construction a Kähler ansatz (g~(1),ω~(1),J~(1),Ω~(1))(\tilde{g}^{(1)},\tilde{\omega}^{(1)},\tilde{J}^{(1)},\tilde{\Omega}^{(1)}) associated to

V~(1)i​j=ai​j+v~i​j,W~(1)=A+w~.\tilde{V}^{ij}_{(1)}=a_{ij}+\tilde{v}^{ij},\quad\tilde{W}_{(1)}=A+\tilde{w}.

A subtlety here is that the connection ϑ=(ϑ1,ϑ2)\vartheta=(\vartheta_{1},\vartheta_{2}) can be twisted by a flat connection. This choice is parametrised by H1​(ℝμ1,μ22×S1×ℝ∖𝔇,T2)=H1​(ℝ2×S1×ℝ,T2)=T2H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2}_{\mu_{1},\mu_{2}}\times S^{1}\times\mathbb{R}\setminus\mathfrak{D},T^{2})=H^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{2}\times S^{1}\times\mathbb{R},T^{2})=T^{2}, since the codimension 3 subset 𝔇\mathfrak{D} inside the base does not affect the fundamental group. We sometimes suppress mentioning this choice since it does not have a strong impact on the geometry, especially because we will exclusively work with T2T^{2}-invariant tensors, which are rarely sensitive to the flat connection.

The Kähler structure is well defined over the region where the matrix V~(1)i​j\tilde{V}_{(1)}^{ij} is positive definite and W~(1)\tilde{W}_{(1)} is positive, except at the singular point (μ1,μ2,η)=0(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta)=0. A sufficient condition for positive definiteness will be given in (3.9). The Kähler structure extends smoothly across 𝔇i\mathfrak{D}_{i}, where the local structure is modelled on the Taub-NUT fibration described by gTaubg_{\text{Taub}} for |μ→|a≳A−1/4|\vec{\mu}|_{a}\gtrsim A^{-1/4} (cf. Section 2.3).

Remark 3.1.

The series definition of α~i\tilde{\alpha}_{i} involves ‘subtracting a logarithmic infinity from a logarithmic infinity’, as in the usual Ooguri-Vafa metric.

Remark 3.2.

Compared to the Taub-NUT type ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3} case in Chapter 2, the T2T^{2}-symmetry and the discrete symmetry persist, while the scaling symmetry and the additional U⁡(1)U(1)-symmetry are now broken.

Remark 3.3.

There is some freedom to add some additive constants to the definition of α~1,α~2,α~3\tilde{\alpha}_{1},\tilde{\alpha}_{2},\tilde{\alpha}_{3}, which does not affect the validity of the linearised equations. Our choice ensures that α~i−αi\tilde{\alpha}_{i}-\alpha_{i} vanishes at the origin, which is need later for gluing in the Taub-NUT type metric on ℂ3\mathbb{C}^{3}. A more quantitative statement is:

Lemma 3.2.

Let |x|=|Re​(η)|≤12|x|=|\text{Re}(\eta)|\leq\frac{1}{2}. The difference α~i−αi\tilde{\alpha}_{i}-\alpha_{i} satisfies the estimate

|α~i−αi|≤CA−1/4log(1+A−1/2|μ→|a).|\tilde{\alpha}_{i}-\alpha_{i}|\leq CA^{-1/4}\log(1+A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}).
Proof.

In the series (3.4) defining α~1\tilde{\alpha}_{1}, we can separate the sum into two ranges |n|≳A−1/2|μ→|a+1|n|\gtrsim A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}+1 and 1≤|n|≲A−1/2|μ→|a1\leq|n|\lesssim A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}. In the first range, using elementary Taylor expansion of arctan,

|α1​(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a22|≤C​|μ→|aA3/4​|n|2,|\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{22}}}|\leq\frac{C|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}{A^{3/4}|n|^{2}},

which implies after summation

∑|n|≳A−1/2|μ→|a+1|α1(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a22|≤CA−1/4min{1,A−3/4|μ→|a}.\begin{split}\sum_{|n|\gtrsim A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}+1}|\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{22}}}|\leq CA^{-1/4}\min\{1,A^{-3/4}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}\}.\end{split}

The second range only appears if 1≲A−1/2|μ→|a1\lesssim A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}. This sum is crudely estimated by

∑1≤|n|≲A−1/2|μ→|a|α1(μ1,μ2,η+n)−14​|n|​a22|≤CA−1/4∑1≤|n|≲A−1/2|μ→|a1n≤CA−1/4log(A−3/4|μ→|a).\begin{split}&\sum_{1\leq|n|\lesssim A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}|\alpha_{1}(\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\eta+n)-\frac{1}{4|n|\sqrt{a_{22}}}|\leq CA^{-1/4}\sum_{1\leq|n|\lesssim A^{-1/2}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}}\frac{1}{n}\\ &\leq CA^{-1/4}\log(A^{-3/4}|\vec{\mu}|_{a}).\end{split}

Combining the discussions gives the result. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.