ScalingStacks

2.3. Non-flat orbifold metrics [05CE]

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

2.3. Non-flat orbifold metrics

We start with a TnT^{n}-torus bundle π:M→Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}\pi:M\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} which has the same topology as the orbifold bundle above. It is convenient to encode the topological information about the bundle by rewriting the equation (5) for the curvature in a distributional form. Let γτj​(u)\gamma^{j}_{\tau}(u) be the NρN_{\rho}-valued 1-current supported on Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau) defined by

(9) γτ​(α)=∑i,j(wi−wj)​∫walli​jα,\gamma_{\tau}(\alpha)=\sum\limits_{i,j}(w_{i}-w_{j})\!\int\limits_{\mathrm{wall}_{ij}}\!\alpha,

for an (n−1)(n-1)-form α\alpha. Then adding the distributional equation

(10) −14​π​(∂2W∂ui​∂uj+4​∂2Vi​j∂η​∂η¯)​d​ui∧d​η∧d​η¯=γτj​(u)∧δ⁡(η)\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{4\pi}\left(\frac{\partial^{2}W}{\partial u_{i}\partial u_{j}}+4\frac{\partial^{2}V^{ij}}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}\right)du_{i}\wedge d\eta\wedge d\bar{\eta}=\gamma^{j}_{\tau}(u)\wedge\delta(\eta)

to the Gibbons-Hawking ansatz will automatically guarantee that the fibration π:M→Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}\pi:M\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} has the right Chern class. Here δ⁡(η)\delta(\eta) stands for the two-current associated to the origin in ℂ\mathbb{C} (the Dirac delta-function).

A remark on notation: γτ\gamma_{\tau} and δ\delta in (10) really mean the pull back of the corresponding currents to the product ℝn×ℂ\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{C}. We will continue to abuse this notation throughout the rest of the paper when there is no confusion possible.

Lemma 2.2.

Suppose we have a Gibbons-Hawking solution on Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\}, that is, a positive definite matrix function locally given by Vi​j=∂2Φ∂uj​∂ujV^{ij}=\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial u_{j}\partial u_{j}} such that W:=detVi​j=−4​∂2Φ∂η​∂η¯W:=\det V^{ij}=-4\frac{\partial^{2}\Phi}{\partial\eta\partial\bar{\eta}}, which satisfy the distributional equation (10) in Rn×ℂR^{n}\times\mathbb{C} and, in addition, ∫0∞Vi​j​(u,η,η¯)​d​ui=∞\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}V^{ij}(u,\eta,\bar{\eta})du_{i}=\infty. Then the total space of the torus bundle π:M→Rn×ℂ∖Π⁡(τ)×{0}\pi:M\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C}\setminus\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} can be compactified to the fibration π¯:M¯→Rn×ℂ\bar{\pi}:\bar{M}\to R^{n}\times\mathbb{C} such that M¯\bar{M} is biholomorphic (in the orbifold sense) to X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} in a manner which respects the map

η:X𝒯→ℂ.\eta:X_{\mathcal{T}}\to\mathbb{C}.

In particular, such solution defines a complete Ricci-flat Kähler metric on the orbifold X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} with the standard holomorphic volume form Ωτ\Omega_{\tau}.

Proof.

The discriminant locus D=Π⁡(τ)×{0}D=\Pi(\tau)\times\{0\} is of codimension 3 in Rn×ℂR^{n}\times\mathbb{C} and has a nice simplicial stratification. Using this stratification the topological compactification from MM to M¯=X𝒯\bar{M}=X_{\mathcal{T}} follows by extending the argument of [Gro01, Prop. 2.9] to arbitrary dimensions and including the orbifold singularities. To prove the matching of complex structure we will follow closely [LeB91] where the argument is given for the ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2} case.

Let ∂∂θj\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}} be the Hamiltonian vector fields generating the TnT^{n}-action on MM. Consider the commuting vector fields

(11) ξj=−12​(∂∂θj−−1​J​∂∂θj)=12​((V−1)i​j​∂^∂ui−−1​∂∂θj),\xi_{j}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}}-\sqrt{-1}J\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left((V^{-1})^{ij}\frac{\hat{\partial}}{\partial u_{i}}-\sqrt{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}}\right),

where

∂^∂ui=∂∂ui−Ak​(∂∂ui)​∂∂θk,\frac{\hat{\partial}}{\partial u_{i}}=\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{i}}-A_{k}\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{i}}\right)\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{k}},

denote the horizontal lifts of the ∂∂ui\frac{\partial}{\partial u_{i}}, and J:T​M→T​MJ:TM\to TM is the complex structure. Since the ∂∂θj\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_{j}} preserve both the metric and the complex structure, it follows that the ξj\xi_{j} are holomorphic vector fields. Moreover, the their flows are complete because

(12) ∫0∞Vi​j​(u,η,η¯)​d​ui=∞,\int\limits_{0}^{\infty}V^{ij}(u,\eta,\bar{\eta})du_{i}=\infty,

hence, the ξj\xi_{j} generate a holomorphic action of (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n} on M¯\bar{M}.

The orbit structure of this action is easily seen to be identical with the toric (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}-action on the orbifold X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}}. Namely, for each subspace

La={(u,η):η=a},L_{a}=\{(u,\eta)\ :\ \eta=a\},

the set π−1​(La)\pi^{-1}(L_{a}) is a union of orbits. For a≠0a\neq 0 the π−1​(La)\pi^{-1}(L_{a}) is a single orbit, where as the π−1​(L0)\pi^{-1}(L_{0}) decomposes into (n+1)(n+1) orbits isomorphic to (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n} and a bunch of smaller dimensional orbits according to the polyhedral decomposition of Nℝ∗/ρN^{*}_{\mathbb{R}}/\rho induced by Π⁡(τ)\Pi(\tau).

Consider the following subsets of Nℝ∗/ρ×ℂN^{*}_{\mathbb{R}}/\rho\times\mathbb{C}:

Li:={(u,η):η≠0}∪{(u,η):u∈Qiτ}.L_{i}:=\{(u,\eta)\ :\ \eta\neq 0\}\cup\{(u,\eta)\ :\ u\in Q^{\tau}_{i}\}.

We can cover the space MM by (n+1)(n+1) open sets 𝒰i:=π−1​(Li)\mathcal{U}_{i}:=\pi^{-1}(L_{i}). Each map η:𝒰i→ℂ\eta:\mathcal{U}_{i}\to\mathbb{C} defines a holomorphic principal (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}-bundle over ℂ\mathbb{C}. Since ℂ\mathbb{C} is Stein and contractible we conclude that each 𝒰i\mathcal{U}_{i} is biholomorphic to the product (ℂ∗)n×ℂ(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\times\mathbb{C}.

Now notice that the bundle structures on 𝒰i\mathcal{U}_{i} agree on their intersection π:⋂i𝒰i→ℂ∗\pi:\bigcap_{i}\mathcal{U}_{i}\to\mathbb{C}^{*}. Thus, MM is biholomorphic to the quotient space

∐i((ℂ∗)n×ℂ∗)/∼,\coprod_{i}\left((\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\times\mathbb{C}^{*}\right)/\sim,

where the equivalence relation is of the form

(13) (ui,η)i∼(fi​j​(η)​u,η)j,0≤i,j≤n,(u_{i},\eta)_{i}\sim(f_{ij}(\eta)u,\eta)_{j},\quad 0\leq i,j\leq n,

for some cocycle fi​jf_{ij} with values in the holomorphic maps ℂ∗→Aut⁡(ℂ∗)n\mathbb{C}^{*}\to\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}. But any automorphism of the principal homogeneous space (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n} is given by an nn-tuple of non-zero complex numbers. In other words, each fi​jf_{ij} is an nn-tuple of holomorphic functions ℂ∗→ℂ∗\mathbb{C}^{*}\to\mathbb{C}^{*}. Another choice of trivializations 𝒰i≅(ℂ∗)n×ℂ\mathcal{U}_{i}\cong(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}\times\mathbb{C} amounts to modifying the cocycle fi​jf_{ij} by a coboundary. That is, the biholomorphism type of MM is determined by the singularities of fi​j​(η)f_{ij}(\eta) at η=0\eta=0.

Next we notice that if any of the fi​j​(η)f_{ij}(\eta) had an essential singularity at 0, then it would be possible to find a sequence of points in MM converging to several distinct points. Hence MM would not even be Hausdorff. Hence, every singularity has to be removable. But the orders of vanishing of the fi​j​(η)f_{ij}(\eta) can be read off from the residues of the 1-forms d​log⁡fi​jd\log f_{ij}, and this is a topological information given by the Chern class of the original TnT^{n}-bundle. THus, the claimed biholomorphism is established on MM, and it can be extended to M¯\bar{M} by an orbifold version of the Hartog’s theorem.

In order to show that the holomorphic volume form is necessary the standard one we will prove the following (stronger) statement. Given two sets of commuting vector fields ξi\xi_{i} and ζi\zeta_{i} generating the (ℂ∗)(\mathbb{C}^{*})-actions on η:M→ℂ\eta:M\to\mathbb{C} which agree topologically, there is a biholomorphism ϕ:M→M\phi:M\to M such that ϕ∗​ξi=ζi\phi_{*}\xi_{i}=\zeta_{i}. Then, taking XiX_{i} to be the standard action on X𝒯X_{\mathcal{T}} yields the claim about the volume form.

Let {e1,…,en}∈N∗\{e_{1},\dots,e_{n}\}\in N^{*} together with ρ\rho form a basis of N∗N^{*} topologically compatible with ξi\xi_{i} and ζi\zeta_{i}. That is, if {αi,η}\{\alpha_{i},\eta\} and {βi,η}\{\beta_{i},\eta\} are the two sets of coordinates, such that in the respective coordinates ξj=αj​∂∂αj\xi_{j}=\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_{j}} and ζj=βj​∂∂βj\zeta_{j}=\beta_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{j}} on the big toric orbit {η≠0}≅(ℂ∗)n+1\{\eta\neq 0\}\cong(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}, then the transition maps between these coordinates and the standard ones {zei,η}\{z^{e_{i}},\eta\} extends from (ℂ∗)n+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} to the whole of MM without zeros/poles. As a consequence, if we write

αj​∂∂αj=Bjk​βk​∂∂βk,\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_{j}}=B_{j}^{k}\beta_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{k}},

then the matrix BjkB_{j}^{k} is invertible and extends to MM.

The goal is to find a change of coordinates βj=αj​eψj\beta_{j}=\alpha_{j}e^{\psi_{j}} which would induce such a Jacobian matrix. Using the chain rule

αj​∂∂αj=(δjk+αj​∂ψk∂αj)​βk​∂∂βk,\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha_{j}}=\left(\delta^{k}_{j}+\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial\psi_{k}}{\partial\alpha_{j}}\right)\beta_{k}\frac{\partial}{\partial\beta_{k}},

this amounts to solving the differential system

(14) αj​∂ψk∂αj=Bjk−δjk,\alpha_{j}\frac{\partial\psi_{k}}{\partial\alpha_{j}}=B_{j}^{k}-\delta^{k}_{j},

which, in general, is overdetermined.

However, in our case there are several restrictions on BjkB_{j}^{k}. Namely, note that the forms

d​βjβj=Bjk​d​αkαk mod ​d​η\frac{d\beta_{j}}{\beta_{j}}=B^{k}_{j}\frac{d\alpha_{k}}{\alpha_{k}}\quad\text{ mod }d\eta

are closed and have to satisfy the periodicity requirements of the action:

12​π​−1​∫γkd​βjβj=12​π​∫02​πBjk​(α1,…,αk​e−1​θ,…,αn,η)​𝑑θ=δjk,\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\int_{\gamma_{k}}\frac{d\beta_{j}}{\beta_{j}}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}B^{k}_{j}(\alpha_{1},\dots,\alpha_{k}e^{\sqrt{-1}\theta},\dots,\alpha_{n},\eta)\,d\theta=\delta_{j}^{k},

where γk\gamma_{k} is the generating cycle in the kk-th factor of ℂ∗\mathbb{C}^{*} in (ℂ∗)n(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n}. Then, by writing BjkB^{k}_{j} in the power series form

(15) Bjk=∑m1​e1+⋯+mn​en+r​ρ∈𝒯∨(bjk)m,r​α1m1​…​αnmn​ηr,mj∈ℤ,B^{k}_{j}=\sum\limits_{m_{1}e_{1}+\dots+m_{n}e_{n}+r\rho\in\mathcal{T}^{\vee}}(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r}\alpha_{1}^{m_{1}}\dots\alpha_{n}^{m_{n}}\eta^{r},\quad m_{j}\in\mathbb{Z},

we conclude that (bjk)m,r=0(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r}=0 for mj=0m_{j}=0, except for (bjk)0,0=δjk(b^{k}_{j})_{0,0}=\delta_{j}^{k}, and (bjk)m,r=0(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r}=0 if there exists an i≠ji\neq j with mi≠0m_{i}\neq 0. Hence, one can simultaneously solve the equations

mj​(ak)m,r=(bjk)m,r,m_{j}(a^{k})_{m,r}=(b^{k}_{j})_{m,r},

for all m,r,k,jm,r,k,j, and write down the power series solution to (14):

ψk=∑m1​e1+⋯+mn​en+r​ρ∈𝒯∨(ak)m,r​α1m1​…​αnmn​ηr,\psi_{k}=\sum\limits_{m_{1}e_{1}+\dots+m_{n}e_{n}+r\rho\in\mathcal{T}^{\vee}}(a^{k})_{m,r}\alpha_{1}^{m_{1}}\dots\alpha_{n}^{m_{n}}\eta^{r},

that converges on the same polydisk in MM as the power series (15) for BjkB^{k}_{j} does. These functions ψk\psi^{k} provide the desired coordinate change. ∎

It is an interesting problem to exhibit the existence (and abundance) of the Gibbons-Hawking solutions. For instance, one can try to deform the standard (flat) orbifold metric. Applying continuity method techniques (cf. [GT83, Ch. 17]) this amounts to inverting a second order linear elliptic differential operator – the linearization of the GH operator at the flat solution. The difficulty is that one of the eigenvalues of its symbol blows off as we approach the discriminant.

In two dimensions (the original GH ansatz [Haw77],[GH78]) the equation becomes the usual Laplace equation. Since there are no positive harmonic functions on ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3} except constants, any solution has the form

V=ℓ⁡(τ)2​u2+|η|2+a,V=\frac{\ell(\tau)}{2\sqrt{u^{2}+|\eta|^{2}}}+a,

where ℓ⁡(τ)\ell(\tau) is the length of τ\tau, and aa is a positive constant. This defines the famous Taub-NUT metric – the first example of a non-trivial complete Kähler Ricci-flat metric on ℂ2\mathbb{C}^{2} and its quotients by cyclic groups.

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